through the formula doing more in the way of competitive grants. at the same time, he thinks there are aspects that were problematic. in particular it was quite prescriptive if you look at what the application process and actually looked like. this wasn't states coming forward with their best ideas, this was the government telling them a set of idea, if you agree with this set of ideas the federal government put forth that they call what i care it that looks like a stick, so i don't think it was a good model in that respect and that is one of the reasons you are seeing the states have such a hard time implement the promises right now. all of the states have been forced to modify their commitments that they made in the race to the top grant application. many of them multiple times. ..

>> i think that first of all, you made the point that having moving funds from formula on programs to competitive grant programs the president could use come -- cutting formula funding programs to fund competitive grant programs is not a good idea. and incentives, not by cutting

other programs like education. and competitive grant programs, democratic and republican governors across the country, has not seen the level of change have been, and part of that -- competitive grand river school district does call for an it wanted to. and to boost teacher quality to bring down data firewalls. the outcome so far, it is a catalyst for local and state leadership that opted into with which does represent a major difference from the no child left behind one size fits all. it is hard to force people to make change. this tool with other people who wanted to, and so much activity and progress -- that is a hallmark and an important part

of the president's focus on education. >> let's get back to reauthorization. you mentioned the focus on energy, and how come reauthorization is done in the first term? >> the president and secretary worked hard. many meetings, there are people on the secretary's team went to many meetings and spoke about it. a lot of efforts to try to get that bill authorization done in the second half. the first half of four years there was a recognition with the stimulus getting passed in february, time was needed but the second half there was tremendous effort. congress was not able to agree. there were divisions in congress and heroic efforts to get bills then and was not embraced significantly by many in the

republican party. some republicans were trying to work together and significant efforts to get it past had not succeeded, arne duncan and the president supported and need to give states relief from some aspects provided the waiver and i do think what i heard last night from the cochair not only review but the reversal of waivers to go back to know child left behind is the move backwards in time to move forward. >> given that most polls suggest the shape of congress after the election will look like it does today, any reason to expect that and obama administration would be able to move reauthorization in the next four years? >> there are people in the city who know better than i do with the congressional politics, i would say the president is going to continue to champion full comprehensive reauthorization to bring benefits to kids and communities across the country

and make fundamental changes and some of the race to the top and other reform efforts support across the country raising standards as people make progress, i do think they will keep running into barriers and it will be a growing outcry from states, democratic and republican governors to reauthorize elementary education and that gives a shot in the first year or two of a second term. >> governor romney is elected a review of the ways, what is the likely outcome? will the negate the waivers? will be issued his own conditions? >> the priority of taking office will get a comprehensive reauthorization of no child left behind which will render waivers a new issue. however, it is not clear that will happen, but you need to plan for the contingency that it

doesn't. a couple things about the waivers that concern me. the first is the waiver process did not just grant flexibility to states but set forth a host of conditions that states needed to describe to these conditions were generated entirely within the executive branch and sorts of unprecedented act of authority. no question about the authority of the secretary of education to grant waivers from no child left behind. that is in the law itself. there are questions about whether the secretary of education can come of with his own set of conditions with no basis in the law whatsoever and require them to use problems in no child left behind and failure of the administration to get a reauthorization to bring states into agreeing to these conditions because they need flexibility and waivers will be reviewed with particular attention to whether those conditions make sense. >> you think that is fair

critique of the waivers? >> it is clear there is full authority in the context of the law to respond to statements that want desperately to get targeted, smart relief from the excess prescriptive ness of the way no child left behind is implemented. the fact that 40 states have come forward eagerly with waiver requests, asking for this relief, to me shows this is not something being imposed by some exercise of discretion for the tool that most states support for superintendents and governors. is a long-term fix? no. the real job needs to be done by congress in a second term to get this done but the move forward if it is not done the idea of retreating on waivers to return to nclb policy is not the way the president would go.

and the flexibility on the basis that they got that for period until congress can take action. >> i suggesting a romney administration should be compelled to respect the terms of the obama administration's waivers? >> on the one hand and the president should review executive action and look at moving forward and what needs to be done with various requests from waivers but i do think what the campaign has said is to say waivers will be taken back and they will be -- that is not -- [talking over each other] >> that is not what the campaign has said. they have not said waivers would be taken back but would be reviewed. it is not how -- [talking over each other] >> supported by -- we can decide where we are headed. [talking over each other] >> you need certainty.

predictability in policymaking an two year waivers do not give them predictability especially with a change in administration. we need a comprehensive approach, a coherent approach to federal policy and i think governor romney has put forward the basis for compromise around the reauthorization -- >> governor romney had predictability in public policy. >> i want to ask a specific question about what our governor romney's proposals around the affordability? special education funds? i wonder if you could say a word about this? for a stock. in a particular question, he suggested nclb went too far dictating policy but he has also suggested the federal government, the governor's white papers must ensure that states base choice -- how do you exert

that kind of pressure while at the same time reeling back the federal -- >> let me talk about the affordability proposal. what governor romney is that we should take $25 billion in formula funds that goes through title one to low-income students and special needs students. funds he has not proposed cutting contrary to what jon said. and meaning they would follow eligible children to any district or charter school or enable them to enroll in a tutoring program or take courses on line. this step would do three things immediately. first, it would render irrelevant a host of existing regulations on the use of title one funds in particular that burden school district in various ways and constrain innovation and make their lives more difficult and drive up administrative costs. secondly it would put the federal government behind principles that public education funding should be used to

empower students, not to empower sluggish and change resistant bureaucracy. and if you eliminate a practical obstacle to creating waited student funding systems with a lot of people are trying to do at the state and local level in that obstacle is the lack of affordability of federal funds, the grants that would be available under affordability program proposals are relatively small. this is not something that would immediately generate large vouchers for all of 4 kids in america. it would accomplish the three things i just mentioned. it would also not force vouchers on anyone but it would allow states like florida and ohio to name two that come to mind that have created private school choice programs for low-income students so for the first time they would be able to use federal dollars to support those efforts. this is the model for the pal grant program and relatively

small federally funded grants that students can use to attend the institution of their choice public-private. it would be the right step forward for these programs which have a disappointing track record in terms of driving improvement in student achievement for our most needy students. >> how do you reconcile the governor's desire to dial back the federal role with commitment to doing more to insure states are extending expanded school choice? >> dial back the federal role in areas the federal government is not well positioned to be involved in or have a core responsibility for. that does not mean filing back to roll across the board. one of the things the federal government needs to do is focus on transparency of information. that is essential to support expanded school choice and reach a good outcome but the second is insuring that students actually have a choice. that the federal government across a variety of industries

plays a role of trustbuster, keeps local monopolies from emerging. that would be what we have now in the public education space. what will school districts have a monopoly on federal funds to educate students within their borders and the governor sees an appropriate federal limiting strength of local monopolies. >> talk about education as an industry. education is not an industry. education is a public institution that represent our country's interest and community interests getting kids educated for success in jobs and prepare for college and industry. and there wasn't a call for reducing funds and governor romney said recently he won't increase funds but cut them. last night your cochairs said they will cut demand earlier that he wanted more incentives

for competitive grants and if you have a flat budget and lose it yourself as to come from somewhere which means coming from tension from formula funds or somewhere else which means my take is if you are not increasing funding the increasing economic incentives that means cuts elsewhere which is not the right approach on the affordability question. so i think you mentioned there is again two decent people who care about the future of america and education and two different views of how to get there and you mentioned the word dialed back and you want to dial back certain things and not others. campaigns that you want to dial back the president's focus on supporting federal the state efforts to raise standards for the common for and dial back the federal effort that would require state driven efforts to turn local performing school and different places to dial back federal funding on things like refocusing held on to those it is clear there are some that

would not but affordability proposal is a proposal that would dial the federal role but in a problematic way. in a community or state that says we want to try this i doubt, states should try out ideas and we have a discussion -- the community act for statewide try it. i think the idea of the federal government mandated, title one funds and mandating affordable funding, and state dollars, it is an overreach. the $700 or $800 supporting those, and far more than 800.

>> the idea that i can find competitive grant programs and create incentives without cutting back corps programs like title one is just crazy. you may consider title 2 a formula funding program but this $2.5 billion that goes out annually not only to support teacher quality improvement. virtually all of it goes to cost size reduction or to professional developed and programs with zero track record of the effectiveness. the obama administration highlighted numerous programs it wants to consolidate or eliminate that hasn't been successful doing so but those other programs that can be actually converted into livres to drive reform and protecting responsibilities to the most needy students. >> set up the question of spending which is terrific. let's talk about this. jon, back in 2008 the president pledged he would do what we do with our family budget and make sure money is spent wisely. i will go through the entire federal budget page by page,

line by line and eliminate programs that don't work and are not needed. what programs met the criteria in the department of education? what will secretary duncan zero out in effect of funds? >> the president and the administration have proposed 30 to 40 programs for elimination because of lack of evidence and some have been successful and some haven't. this isn't a gamble where you set of rihanna full time members industry should contain. i should know what they are but some are just small programs that were created 20 or 30 years ago that kept getting funded over and over because of institutional necessary. i don't know the names of those that those other programs when they don't have evidence of success that should be eliminated and the president and secretary and all those have got a eliminated and in the meantime also established the principle of actually funding things based on performance and the investment innovation fund which

is a signature president obama initiative really a hallmark effort to save debate ideology but funding that goes to those things to demonstrate significant results and what is known as the eye of refunding is an interesting model and something we should do with bipartisan support. let's find what works. >> we are big supporters of investing in innovation fund and the number of things are attractive and made dollars available to non-profits in combination with partnership with school districts and did have this approach with grant amounts based on level of evidence you have to support and it was the first federal program to my knowledge, education program that actually is return on investment as one of the criteria for selection but this idea that the program the president and secretary duncan served in this audiology freeway make decisions based on the program flies in the face of

decisions regarding d.c. opportunity scholarships program in the nation's capital which is a program where congressional mandated evaluation shows that students desperately need students 1700 of them served by this and attend private schools and much more likely to graduate from high school but the president has consistently worked to eliminate the program and instead the effective in capping its growth so this is an area where the federal government has much more ability to influence education policy and one that governor romney would seek to extend. >> the president has been a champion of parental choice in public education and oppose private funding to support voucher plans. that is the difference. he has been very aggressive in supporting expanded choice for kids and low-income kids through significant expansion of high-quality charter schools and increase funding for a charter school program and incentivizing race to the top and the real question the difference in philosophy the more you

described, the signature initiative in k-12 for the romney campaign is the affordability proposal and $700 across district lines requiring states -- the president believes and i believe choice, a smart piece of a broader plan. high standards and funding and accountability and choice is part of that. is not a cure all to force that. >> let's stay with us for a moment because you suggested the president -- in 2008 in an interview with the journal walking sentinel he said let's see if the milwaukee voucher experiment works and if it does one ever preconceptions' my attitude is you do what works for the kid. as marty reference, congressional mandate evaluation found 97% of kids going through the fellowship program graduate from high school compared to 55% of kids who did not. is the president -- is the president's stance on vouchers change or is he not convinced d.c.'s college of program works?

how should we reconcile these? >> the president will look carefully at the evidence over time of the impact of various programs and student achievement and how impact kids and benefit from a program and how it strengthens public education. and charter school programs that provide meaningful choice and meaningful flexibility that reflect those programs that can incorporate the benefits of many voucher programs without some of the problematic aspect and the president is interested not just in saying x or wide program for one city but a national strategy to support many choices for kids and programs -- charter schools is a plan to withstand standards are better approach. >> marty. >> in the first presidential debate governor romney promised he would not cut education funding. but of course he has frequently said that he intends to cut taxes and dramatically reduce our trillion dollars annual

deficit. why is he uniquely promising to protect education but nothing else, and should we believe him? >> you should believe him. as to why he is uniquely protecting -- his commitment to the issue, he would agree with jon to some extent that federal money can be used to drive reform and so it is hard to see the federal government driving reform. the federal funding is the letter the federal government has to drive reform at the state and local level. obviously we need to keep spending to accomplish that goal. >> is he suggesting because suggested before that title 2 might not be an effective fund bought is he suggesting when he said he would not cut education funding that he is going to hold

harmless every program? >> not every program. the white paper we put forward and specifically cutting and consolidating programs not just making changes to higher education funding system as well as changing in k-12 one of those being taken the title $2 and actually consolidating them into a block grant to the states to drive innovation and human capital and development and certainly it is not a program by program program, it is a statement that education will be a priority of this administration and will be protected as we make efforts to address the nation's fiscal challenges. >> on this question i think when it's someone becomes president of the united states, it is the most demanding job in the world. you have so much on your plate. you can focus on that many things as a leader yourself. you got to focus on a few of the

things you focus on are things you month after month year after year prioritize and the president has demonstrated a relentless focus on education, early learning, strengthening public schools post secondary. you said having predictability is important to help make it easier to do their jobs. i do think for governor romney to save for the first time in a presidential debate just before the election to say i am not going to cut education funding when his own proposals would cut non-defense non domestic discretionary funding by over 50% over the next several years is hard to believe and i don't think it contradicts the civic we number of things he is saying in the campaign website. one is there as a proposal that would immediately cut 5% across the border across the board in programs across the board across the board. may be taken off of a website that that was recently but

secondly last night your cochair repeated what governor romney said which was he would eliminate the move back the clock on the direct loan program. the president talked to the direct loan program which saved $61 billion that had gone to banks to subsidize loans and that went to pell grant and community college and student loan support and repealing that would leave major cuts in the pell grant for community college and payment and the last thing i will mention is in the governor's plan, refocusing pell grants and right now most fell grants are under $30,000. the maximum is 50. if you refocus and cut those i don't know what families are getting them right now but students need to listen and in those ways call for cuts that i think make the recent call for not getting education really hard to mask that a ban not credible consistent policy people meet the year from a candidate. >> keep in mind the context for the president's statement that he was going to cut education

spending. >> got a contest ahead. >> the governor's statement. he is constantly being attacked for his supposed plans to cut programs and these are tax that the fact that every fact checking organization and independent fact checking organization said are patently false. they are based on projections of the ryan budget plan, not a romney budget plan. ryan is the vice presidential candidate but this is something he put forward as chairman of the house budget committee. second of all, we don't know what the democrats's plan is because they haven't passed a budget in three years in congress and the obama administration put forward no ideas how it is going to pay for the $58 billion funding shortfall program faces over ten years. if we apply the same standard

you are applying to romney and ryan that just because they haven't said how they will pay something that we assume they are going to cut it, president obama is proposing cuts to the pell grant program. >> the president laid out a specific budget he can go on line and look at in the 2013 budget to increase education and increase pell grants and lay out the plan -- i would say the language around refocusing pell grants on those that need it most to me i don't know what families getting killed don't need the focus away from. that is part of the record. >> on this question the president, the respect program that secretary duncan promoted and spoke about hiring 100,000 teachers but from the 2010 discretionary appropriations for education under the president based on the 2009 budget we are

$64 billion for k-12. his proposal for 2013 is 69.8. in four years the president has increased spending and are 1% to 2% rate a year. meanwhile last summer, he championed maintaining the supersaid the on stafford, 3.7% which doesn't actually affect any graduates until the labor market of 2016-17 at the earliest and cost $6 billion a year. what is the process by which the president is the turning which of his priorities are getting funded and which are not? >> the process by which the president determines his priorities is look at the most important investments in kids and fundamentally significant difference with governor romney is talk about education as an expense. the president believes education is an investment, not an expense. he prioritizes education because he knows it can help kids get a fair shot at a decent wage and unemployment rates are double

for those who raise gains and growing significantly between those who got college degrees and prioritize focus on education and that says you notice he got the targeted focused level of increase in the domestic side and look for savings where he confine them on a direct loan bill, move direct loans saves $61 billion that we are going to bank as middle men to surprise loans and move that to tell--pal grants and a great example and the revenue neutral way of shifting funds from banks in this case to support college kids and access to a good future. >> you bring up the subsidy to the stafford loan program keeping interest rates low. just to be clear keeping those interest rates low for the following year is something that romney supported. exercising leadership in the party to get congress to go along with that. but at the same time, repeatedly topping these 1-year funding

fixes to keep programs going bankrupt without a long-term to put them on long-term plan to put them on sustainable fiscal footing is not a model for good policy. >> the education budget -- the ad education budget propose in a 1-year budget. the president of ford and $4 trillion plan to reduce the debt and deficit there is a long-term plan and the education increases i'm referring to are what you put forward proposals that reflect your gains and in ten years ten year plan to bring down the deficit which prioritize education as one of a few areas the get protected. ..

on the common core standards are the state commissioners of education, the democratic governors, republican governors in 46 states who came together and said yes we want to replace our dumbed down standards which had higher standards and better assessments. people are delighted this is a historic bipartisan effort with republican governors like jeb bush and democratic governors and the democratic mayors. this is an amazing accomplishment. with the state has done is to things. number one, you come together and set standards and i will give you support for that so you are getting funding for states funding of a stimulus to go to states. we are working on assessments reflect the state of a national standards to ensure the standards can be measured. second is in the proposal that

the secretary had the president put out there. he said yes he would require states not to do, in court. this is important. the president said every state ought to have standards that reflect true readiness for success in college careers. the to do that although the president doesn't mention common core but as it is clear and the secretary said it can be standards -- >> here is the language from the president's reauthorization blueprint beginning in 2015 the formula funds will be available only to states that implementing assessments based on college and career ready standards that are common to a significant number of states. does anyone know any other college and career ready standards that are common to a significant number of states? >> absolutely. >> the of the states and new england, three or four states and new england that work on the standards and other states working on standards. so it isn't, in court the presidency you've got to have standards for readiness and success. similar also to jump in and make it clear governor romney's

supports the standards and tracked as the governor of massachusetts, he's all the good standard system and the nation's best can play. it's not the key driver but it can be foundation for progress. and we support the efforts on the part of the states to collaborate on the development of the common standards that he is opposed to having the federal government it's in a cell way to participate in a particularly degenerate the common standard. >> the way to do this is the support to make it happen. >> marty, the governor and education nation declared the federal government should not provide support financial or otherwise to the common core. so does this mean for instance that he would seek determinant support for the assessment consortium for smarter balance? >> that's my understanding. >> this represents a sometimes there is this impression that's

important that there may be commonality between the governor and president obama in education and perhaps if there are members of the status as a jew there might be more but in terms of what they are calling for there are dramatic revisions in the this is one of them. the president said let's invest a small percentage what you call the small percentage of the stimulus for the 46 states that agree on the standards and have meaningful assessment to replace the mediocre fell in the bubble tested that we have today the governor would eliminate funding the states are counting on to make that happen that is a mistake with what the president needs. >> two questions. number one, in your opinion would you say the democratic national committee got it wrong when they credited the president for his signal role in driving the adoption of the standard? >> the challenge the higher standards and that's true as he said we are going to give you more flexibility, but we want you to adopt standards that are more challenging as the

president and secretary did challenge that but it's very different from saying that he actually was a leader of a common core stake driven effort to meet that standard. >> the worst thing that could happen and has happened in some degree to get publicized like this and it's had been -- they got involved in it. >> sorry. go ahead. >> i don't believe that is the case if you go around and have commissioners like you were just deluding to with republican governors and commissioners of education supporting it you have mitch daniels indiana and superintendent getting the incredible pushback right now because it is seen as a federally driven effort and it's literally driven because in fact the past couple of years it had been. >> when you drive change there's pushback in the leadership. he calls on things and yet sometimes we push back of it in this case it's the states that are leading, democratic governors. you mentioned republican governors like mitch daniels. they are leading this and this in pushback on the democratic side that there is a bipartisan

agreement that the state level not the federal level. that to me represents a good thing for the country and if there is pushback i actually had my ear the people pushing for higher standards but that is their leadership. >> we disagree. marty you do not believe there is bipartisan agreement in the core at this point? >> it depends on the state your talking about there are exceptions to that. >> but most states are. >> let's talk teachers for a net. we witnessed the teachers' strike in chicago which garnered substantial attention after the election. secretary duncan said i confident that both sides, referring to the chicago teachers strike in the best interest of the students at heart and can colavita the gloor gunning table. the board of pfizer's in the survey of education found at the end of the day 62% felt they had won the strike and 9 percent

thought that rahm emanuel had run on the resolution. i'm curious from each of your perspectives do you believe both sides in the chicago strike had the best interest in the chicago students at heart? >> i think what is evident around the country is that we have kids and parents and teachers and unions and mayors who absolutely have the best interest of kids at heart. the overwhelming majority in the country that actually do believe in education as a part of the american identity helping the kids get ahead and creating the future so having the kids interest at heart i do think there are dramatic differences in how you get there and part of what is this afternoon. >> slash chicago coming you would say from where you are standing that both sides were focused on the interest of the children and equally so. islamic as a representative of the obama campaign this isn't inappropriateness to focus on

local issues in that context but when i've been to schools across the country at the president whether it is my years are teachers or principals are parents, disagreements on how but there is deep caring about kids for education that is actually the basis for the agreement we are seeing across the country in many states. >> teachers care about doing a good job about ensuring the students learn that they also have their own individual employees and one of the ways in which they try to protect those interests is by organizing the unions to try to advance the interest through collective means. it's no surprise that in some cases they have been entirely aligned, and those instances the organizations that exist throughout chanced teacher interest as employees are going to prioritize the interest of teachers and that is going to lead to conflicts like the one

we saw in chicago. some accuse said the chicago teachers union is not primarily had the interest of children at heart? >> they had their own material interest in mind. so, you are asking for the pay increase in order to work longer years, longer school year, then, you know, that is something that is in their own interest. when they are resisting their evaluation systems that the obama administration believes are important to be able to drive the overall one perfidy and performance nationwide, they are resisting the implementation of the systems and yes, they're protecting the collective interests of the teachers as employees and so what we need is political -- that is entirely appropriate by the way for unions to play that role. what we need is the other side of the table in this case the mayor emanuel to stand up to those interests and for the interest of children. and in order to get that, we actually need other political officials, other elected officials like obama and duncan

not to stay above the fray and say everyone is working together, but actually to back people who are trying to drive the kind of changes that the obama administration tried to see happen. >> i think that as president you've got to understand how to focus and be judicious about where you leave and how you empower people at the state level unions and mayors and superintendents to get there. has the president played extremely important priorities many of which have been embraced by unions and school boards and superintendents and mayors and the support them and the unions don't support some of them. the idea that the president and secretary should in every city where the conflict comes up get involved in the kind of way in on that is an inappropriate use. >> jon? so, a similar battle waged in 2011 was the wisconsin site of bargaining and affected benefit contributions. the wisconsin legislative fiscal

bureau has estimated the pension provision saves wisconsin schools $600 million over the next two years to spend in classrooms to read on that when of course secretary duncan did opt to weigh in and he said governor scott walker's proposal to go in that direction after the leadership the union had shown made no sense to me that was nonsensical so i guess why did the secretary weigh in on that one in wisconsin and what is that sensible about the nature of the wisconsin legislative reform? >> most of the discussions and work in the debates and education should be worked out at the local and state level without comment from the president or secretary. the state and local get a comment on, but on the question of the chicago case or others

where there are debates about how much, what percentage of teacher link to the example? >> the president said it's clear it should be one among the multiple measures and it's giving meaningful feedback to help kids and teachers improve and help hold teachers accountable that they don't take a position there's conflict between x and y% from the president and secretaries that's right. on the other hand, i think that the secretary weighed in there because any effort across the country to eliminate the most collective bargaining and the kind of situation that was a bunning isn't going to lead to progress and then you see it with tremendous conflict that's happened it's not about how you get a better education but whether you look at this kind of conflict is that helpful discussion figuring out what

percentage will be based on the student achievement is a local issue. the way in which they can jump the public sector relations and so this is a state matter, not one that the federal government sets. however, he is supportive of efforts to narrow the scope of collective bargaining which is what happened in wisconsin for exactly the reason that it can generate the type of savings and opportunities to reinvest resources and more productive ways and keep those resources from going to things like a excessively generous pension benefits that teachers don't value in their early career and to attract people in the profession as effectively as other means of compensation, but which unions support so to the extent that there are opportunities to know the scope of collective bargaining, the chicago experience and the

wisconsin experience together show the can be valuable for the states that choose to go down that path and on the part of teacher unions the president and secretary made clear that we need to put our kids' interests first and school boards and teachers unions and superintendents and parents need to change. changes hard. the new ways of doing this to make improvements and he is comfortable pushing. we no longer deutsch because we actually flat line and we haven't kept up with dramatic improvements. it's not inappropriate federal role to actively support efforts to narrow the scope of collective bargaining and that represents another significant difference in perspective between the two campaigns. >> the supreme court just last week in the case of fisher and texas at austin has the case in

which is the possibilities out all affirmative action in higher education and the president filed the amicus brief so wh don't we start withu. how far precisely does the president take affirmative action ought to go. so what are the limits to the point at which affirmative action is not productive? >> the president first and foremost has expanded educational opportunity for every student regardless of background in the race and ethnicity, regardless of family wealth. and kids including low-income have been short changed to get much greater support to succeed. the president opposes very clearly. he also significantly values diversity and when you look at the college campuses for

example, the college responsibility to educate and prepare kids for success and jobs believes there's a huge value to kids being with kids of different backgrounds, so that doesn't mean your share quotas, and means went to college with a dusting and careful ways to consider strategies that are not tied exclusively to race and ethnicity over the bar that ensures a diverse student body to benefit from as a part of the country. >> one of the situations that you elude it to earlier that i by virtue of the fact i'm not traveling with the governor right now and haven't been privy to the conversation on his views of the matter i will say that i know his first priority is in showing that everyone, regardless of their background, has access to the quality k-12 education that will put them to be competitive in higher education but i don't know where he is on that. >> jon come you referenced the

distinction, diversity is not that one of the critiques for instance on the proportionality has been that they are demanding the district's ensure that they reflect racial makeup, an agreement was reached in the department of education. that oakland has essentially promised to restrict the quota of minority students be restricted. is that an unfair interpretation of the administration policy or something we should look more towards in the second term? >> an outside adviser and the administration and campaign full-time or not well versed in the specific comments to the last question reflects what i knew to be the president's core values and beliefs and i think on this question you asked can a president opposes quotas and on

this issue we have seen a significant issue in the country with differential impact and policies of kids and african-american kids, and i think that the office of civil rights has highlighted and said that we need -- the department needs to work with school systems to understand why that is happening and make progress that that actually isn't happening in a way that can happen because of the least adults that lead to a certain increased mr. tater and that is an issue and made ready for the department and should be. estimate just to make it clear cut devotees the sixth look at the history of the american public education. is enforcing civil rights as a critical aspect of the federal role in education. so to be cleared that is what governor romney's sees as an essential function of the department along with those i mentioned earlier. and we need to ensure access to the rigorous work. the other focus of the proportionality policies have been access to the course is comfortable, and so there are

ways in which the states can incentivize that by incorporating access to the performance into the school report cards, but the user proportionality is a blunt tool to enforce the federal rights is going to have consequences to drive on standards in those subjects and it's going to make educators defensive so that is an example of the type of thing that you wouldn't see going on in and around the administration. >> the president is committed to the civil rights agenda and part of the agenda as a way that this administration and the second in turn the president would do that would be in close partnership in a collaborative way on how to address those issues but they do need to be addressed. two more brief question and i want to give you about a minute for a wrap up. first-come apparent trigger. it's drawn attention. after the current resolution success in california. curious whether the two candidates in the front. >> so, governor romney's supports anything that empowers parents to exercise choice over

their child's education and that includes parent triggered. it's a new idea that is being tested by the states the interested in experimenting with this idea. and certainly not something that you would see the federal government imposing as a nationwide policy or anything along those lines. >> i think that the president has been very focused in leading as a secretary on turning out the schools and in powering the parents. a variety of ways to do that. the parent trigger is being tried out in several ways. i haven't heard the president talked about that specific issue but we have a framework of the schools and engaging parents. various things are going to be tried, and if that doesn't mean it may become a federal issue. >> one last question. jon. in the three nonprofits and districts were permitted to compete for profits couldn't be primary participants. gainful employment, the administration has aggressively

sought to regulate the for-profit providers. the president speaking to the young veterans of the for-profit colleges said they don't care about you. so i'm curious, how does the president and how does secretary duncan -- what are their views on the role of the for-profit when it comes to american education, are they a necessary evil or what is the best description? >> there are a lot of ways they're playing a role in education. a whole curriculum in the public industry. for example, the for-profit that is going to benefit from changing a lot to provide much better materials and programs to support kids to reach a high quality of standard. i don't think you heard. and hopefully they will in the coming few years. i think that on something like the gainful employment on my understanding, and i am pretty sure but i've not been involved in that specific issue, but i am pretty sure that those policies,

the regulation from the administration do not single out the profits. but there's a lot of discussion on the profits that they become the policies imposed as an accountability for colleges around things like one-third of your kids pay back the mission there and that's why it is a for-profit or not for profit. >> that would be great if it were an accurate description of the policy. began full employment regulations do and they were rejected by the federal judge. with the term garbage hurry and that is the term for them. it makes no sense to say about a category of schools based on their tax status when the problems in american higher education and the low completion rates and as a result of the low entertainment rates are far broader. so, we do have bad actors in the for-profit to cushion sector and some folks who are only interested in students money. we also have some bad actors in the not-for-profit and the public higher education sector. the answer is not to single out one category of schools where

there's been scrutiny it's to create a level playing field for all schools with accountability for results at the way that we provide accountability in higher education is that the information in the hands of consumers, to make sure and higher education space the reverse of que 12 we have all the choice of the world in american higher education but have no information available to reform that choice. and so, the federal government, one of its roles can be making sure that students have good information about the likelihood of success of difference institutions. >> i am virtually sure that the administration's regulation of the post secondary institutions have been applied to the for profits and not for profits and accountability all this been described in the for-profit issue. i do think that there have been exceptions in the for-profit sector and some institutions in the for-profit sector but their needs to be some accountability. i would say that there is another difference of view of the philosophy that the debate to it's an important part of accountability to the president

has done a lot to provide information to students about how much and education will cost and the rate on post secondary he would be contingent on providing better information managing costs, getting more kids to complete the college. but information is not the sole when you have a bad actor for a long time ever type of institution is their duty to the consequences and that the difference and accounted devotees significant between the two. >> gentlemen? this has been terrific and far more illuminating for my purposes than the the date on the principles typically are. i would give each of you a chance. just 60 seconds, just to share some final thoughts and takeaways. jon, why don't you take over? >> the president has for years been totally consistent about the beliefs and the policy education. just to get young kids ready for success in kindergarten and you will see more of that in the second term. strength in public schools and high standards and investment to

support those. expand access, not retreat on access on the college affordability and college completion success. these are core values. there is no lack of certainty about that. i do think we obtain a dramatic contrast between the philosophy of the president compared to governor romney on education. the president i don't think the governor has provided that predictability in the public policy that marty talked about. i think that he said on issue after issue last night and in the campaign higher standards are important but not for the role. issue after issue is important welcome a lesson of those are not, then i would rather consider running for governor for the education and have barack obama be the president to believe the role to make significant progress on these issues. >> marty? >> i think what's become clear to me over the past few weeks listening to the obama

administration talk about education policy and i don't think anything has dissuaded me is that president obama hasn't put forth a second term agenda for education. he talks about one of programs like 100,000 new teachers without talking about how they are granted 84 and he says it will cost a million dollars but he doesn't say where that is coming from. he hasn't put forward any ideas about getting our existing federal funds to become more effective. he's been focused on the short-term patches like the waivers, like the one year financial extensions and the education rather than long term solutions like the authorization of the elementary and secondary education act. and of course long-term solutions that we need. we both can see that this is an issue that both candidates care deeply about. they both have a record for the voters to look at. governor tommy's record on education goes back to the time as the benner of massachusetts where he held the line on

standards and accountability. he introduced the drug division requirement that generated significant resistance. he vetoed the moratorium on the charter schools and led the expansion of the highest performing charter sector and the country. he was ahead of the curve and promoting refers to the teacher evaluation compensation and his drive to bring the same focus and commitment to the responsibility for the federal role in education. but he doesn't believe the federal government can do everything. he believes the federal government needs to do what it does best and i think that his agenda put him in the position to do that. >> if we look at the rebuttal -- [laughter] on the other and i would like to speak for all of you for joining today whether here or at home to read i'd like to speak for good friends for talking about these issues with the thoughtfulness and that we don't get as often as i would like to but i would like to invite all of you to join us on november 8 when we

find out how this came out to talk about the implications are going forward. with that, thank you very much. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] this debate on education policy between obama and romney campaign advisers leading up to tonight's debate. president obama and mitt romney meet at hostetter university on new york's long island. the audience asks questions

about foreign and domestic issues. .. and the democratic nominee is former u.s. surgeon general richard richard carmona. they debated last night at the arizona public media in tucson. >> good evening and welcome to

an arizona public meeting your boat 2012 special. i am christopher conover. tonight we bring a forum featuring two candidates running for united states senate in arizona. joining us in the studio are republican jeff flake and democrat richard carmona. they are both hoping to replace senator john kyl who is retiring after serving 18 years in the senate. our format this evening is more of an informal discussion. no opening statements. joining us for this discussion is arizona public media's andrea kelly and thank you for coming in. >> it's a pleasure to be with you. >> we was there with health care. we have heard about it for a lot of years. veteran republicans are in favor of repealing it and the general democrats are in favor of some time -- k. cases tweaking it. i would like to know from both of you if you are elected will there be any progress on this issue and we will start with you. >> let me say when you talk about repealing it talking about

repealing health care, talking about repealing the the precedence health care line we should do that because we have got to reform health care and it but we need to do it in ways that we can deliver health care more efficiently. the presidents health care law is not that. do many things. we have to do tort reform and we have to enforce insurance company to compete across state lines and give individuals the same pre-tax benefits the companies currently enjoy to allow for morford ability and that we have to make it easier for individuals to access health your options like medical savings accounts. the presidents health care law has made that more difficult. >> will there be any progress in the next session? flake: of republicans take control of zen is certainly. their number of reforms we been wanting to do for years and if the president and mitt romney will repeal the presidents health care law then we can move onto some genuine reform that we really need. >> dr. carmona will there be any progress on health care changes? carmona: i certainly hope there will be because the public is

expecting to happen but as you can tell from congressman flake's comments -- i have been an health care most of my life and i have been a combat medic. i have been a registered nurse and a physicians assistant, as a physician and a professor teaching medicine and the surgeon general of the united states and what i learned is surgeon general howell everything becomes -- the problem is both parties have got it wrong. they are not arguing over the same issue. they are joining bringing forth business plans and this is about health and driving down the cost of health care and making sure people have access and making sure it's quality care. oath parties have to get themselves relying to address those issues on behalf of the people because they failed miserably. congress has let us down. flake: if i might dr. carmona supports the precedence health care plan so accusing us of politicizing it just because people don't support it has just not true. a lot of us would like to see

better delivery and lower cost. the problem with the precedence health care plan as he promised lower premiums. premiums have gone up 2530% since the health care law was passed and dr. carmona will not say whether he will vote to repeal it or not. it needs to be repealed and we have got to move ahead with genuine reform. carmona: again we are continuing to politicize this issue. this is about asking how we provide the best care for the most people at the least cost? you don't hear politicians discussing that. you see from congressman flake all you hear is that long as they are in charge everything will be fine. they have been in charge before and we still have problems. both parties at different times of gotten this wrong and they're arguing the wrong issues. congressman flake has created a narrative to put me in the place where i really am not. from the very beginning when i was asked about the affordable care act and made it are a clear justice mitt romney wants to say that there are specific elements in that plan that everybody

likes. i'm concerned about the sustainability overtime of having a good as this plan to make sense over time and i criticized the plan but just like governor romney i think there are good parts of that plan that need to be retained and i've been very consistent. >> is so the characterization of my opinion that congressman flake brings up is entirely wrong. carmona: with all due respect it's not. in the health care law was passed he said it was a good first step and it was the right thing to do. when he first started running for this office the question was asked to you support the presidents health care law and he said yes they do. i don't know how more clear you can get them that. now is when the unclarity comes. when dr. carmona was saying that i maybe would not have voted for it. carmona: let me just clarify. when you look at what the congressman is saying, this is politics issue. in the gutter politics and many of those first events that i

spoke at, i spoke about the aspiration of health care that is the surgeon surgeon general of united states i feel like many presidents presidents before president obama that we should have health care for everybody and i spoke to support on the aspiration of health care for all but i was deeply critical of some of the aspects of the ford will care act so once again congressman flake is doing everything he can to paint me into position that really is not my position. >> let me ask this. it seems like well we don't have agreement, one thing that you both do agree on, that the law as it was passed his problematic. the level of problematic i think is where we disagree. so let's assume for a moment that one of you is elected, which should happen coming up here. what do you do specifically to fix it it within your realm of

believing its problematic be it minor tweets or very large changes? carmona: i would be happy to address that. first of all you have to look at where the cost of health care is coming from. we are spending $2.8 trillion a year and what we call health care and it's actually sick care. 18% of our gdp is going out the door. 75 cents of every dollar spent on chronic diseases and most of those are preventable. it's about people smoking and not exercising and gaining weight and type ii diabetes and not wearing a seatbelt and not wearing a helmet. all of those things add up to increase costs and society that neither plan addresses the true rising cost of health care. at the public does not become engaged and the public does not work with us to pursue optimal health and wellness irrespective of his plan is adopted the cost will continue to rise and in a decade or so we will be up to 25% of our gdp, just under $6 trillion in the bank is breaking now. when we look within the plan itself and we look at some of

the issues that are there as far as funding, first of all i'm concerned that the plan calls for reducing more payments to doctors and hospitals. at a time when you want to put 32 million people and the system and doctors are they struggling that might not be the way to go. when we look at the accountable accountable -- the organizations that are being established within accountable care organizations within the plan if you save money and improve the quality then you reap some benefits that will drive costs in the system down so there are a lot of variables i'm concerned with but that doesn't mean -- let's go back and in a nonpartisan way let's figure out how to do this. it's going to take that republican and good democrats reasonably going over this to be able to come up with a good plan. congressman flake feels the republicans are the only ones to have an answer to this problem. >> congressman flake. flake: this is going to take

both sides. that is what congress is about. you have to work across the aisle particularly in the senate when you need 60 votes for virtually everything but what you have got to have this first repeal. we can fix this thing and the notion that we are somehow going to go in and tweak this or that and it's going to be okay when you have rising health care costs, 25 or 30% since it was passed and you have 2014, and in the burden that will be on the state of arizona who is barely getting our legs back under us here with regard to the budget and then if obamacare comes in the presidents health care law it just knocks her feet out from under sick and. it needs to be repealed. sometimes in washington usa have to make choices. you have to say all right this may not have everything that i want in it but i will vote for it or we need to start over again and in this case we need to start over again. it's easy when you haven't been in congress to say well everybody can work together or go certainly bipartisanship is

needed. that has been my career but in this case we have got to repeal obamacare and then put in place meaningful reform that will make health care more affordable. the biggest problems with obamacare or the presidents health care law is it doesn't make health care any more affordable. doesn't do anything to address the cost of health care and therein lies the biggest problem. carmona: the cost of health care is going up because of the cost of chronic diseases and people have to participate. even if you use congressman ryan's plan in the budget it's not going to stop the rising cost of care. all you are doing there is transferring risk from one population from the government out to the population because the congressman is willing to put our seniors health care at risk by boucher rising and privatizing. i'm not willing to do that. those are current benefits. they are not entitlements. they are earned benefits overnight look at what they are trying to do there is a great difference between us but i have been in the health filled most of my life and surgeon general

of united the united states. these are things that are clever sound bites that the cumbersomeness memorizes a playbook from his party. the problem is about the rising cost of care from chronic disease in the public has to be engaged. their good elements of the affordable care act and even governor romney says there are good things in it. we want to close the medicare part d doughnut hole and make sure kids are covered and non-exclusionary coverage. it allows the public to have guaranteed access but it's a partnership. the public now has to engage and do everything he can to keep itself healthy so over time we drive down the cost of health care because that is where the cost is coming from. congressman flake is not addressing that. he's addressing this is a political issue and it's a health issue. flake: i have to answer that. he talked about voucher for medicare. what congressman ryan has supported is a premium support system. supporting the presidents health

care plan takes $716 billion out of current medicare. how in the world are you supposed to pay doctors what they need to keep them in the system or make sure that benefits accrue to current seniors if you take $760 billion out of the? and then the notion that whatever might bring up the difference and i'm politicizing things but when you bring up the difference then it's based on policy that doesn't wash. carmona: you know why she -- congressman it does wash. you're a politician. i have been taking care of patients and making tough decisions every day. it's very different. the issue of the $716 billion is the same 716 the congressman ryan has hidden his budget as well. the real issue here is not taking it away. these are supposedly proved savings over time and if they are crude that could be -- and that aarp looked at this,

nonpartisan organization that this helps to extend medicare another several years so we have nonpartisan people looking at this. the fact is they are not taking money from the people. they are actually being able to generate savings by what they do, to be able to reinvest in medicare so we can prolong medicare. i don't expect the congressman to understand because he has never worked in the health industry. he has cleverly written sound bites that come from his party playbook. flake: a chronic politician is what changes his position based on the situation he is in. when they started this campaign he said i support the presidents health care law and now he says he doesn't support it. the congressman feels if he says it enough that people will believe it. absolutely false. >> let's move ahead in one thing we will agree on is we are not going to agree on this are you two are not going to agree on this and rather than spending the whole hour talking about

this their other topics we want to get into. >> that's true on this sets us up for something i have wanted to set up for any issue. an issue everybody sites in washington and one side or the other side, not just on health care bed howdy pass how do you pass this? everybody says -- how do you make any decisions on any issue in congress dr. carmona? carmona: i would be happy to answer that. my whole life i have been an independent. if if you remember i was surgeon general of the united states or a very conservative administration. i was recruited during the time of being surgeon general because the republicans thought i was such a good person being recruited for governor, being recruited for congress and i refused at the time because i didn't go to washington to use it as a stepping stone to another job. my job was for four years to be the doctor of the nation but during that time unlike congressman flake whose voting record is very very clear in line with his party on just

about every single vote, i worked both sides of the aisle very successfully. when i worked for the republican administration i worked very closely with the democrats to get health issues done. my job was to protect the health safety and security of the nation. i couldn't do that with one party. i had to work with both parties on things like obesity, weapons of mass destruction terrorism and avian flu and regular flu. flu. all of those things are american issues. they are not partisan issues and as surgeon general i had to work the size of the aisle and i was successful in doing that because my focus was not on getting reelected or keeping the party in power. it was about doing what was right for the american public on each and every issue and not allowing either party to politicize science which they both tried to do at different times. absolutely yes. >> congressman flake how do we get past this partisanship? flake: first you have to have the temperament to work with both sides.

that it's been my history. i started shinkman doing an internship. i have seen the other side. i've worked with democrats all along the way. in fact during my time in congress that passed more amendments on the floor of the house than any republican by a long shot. in the past four years no republican or democrat has passed more amendments on the floor then i have. you can do that unless you work with both sides of aisle well. even though i've taken some tough positions with earmarks and whatnot i've never made it personal and you have got to do that in washington. in the senate you have to have 60 votes for nearly everything so you have got to work across the aisle and barry goldwater once said politics is nothing more than public is this. sometimes you make the best of the mixed bargain. we know that compromise is needed and the difficulty right now has been the house republicans have put our stake in the ground with passing the budget and a lot of the ads that are run now against me are

saying jeff flake believes in this budget and that budget would cut this for that or that for this. but we can't get harry reid and the democrats to put their stake in the ground on their budgets so we can say we are here, you are here, why do we don't we meet in the middle? that has been a very frustrating for many of us who are used to working across the aisle and used to reaching an agreement that you have got to have the temperament. dr. carmona said he was surgeon general recruited by a republican and it's worthy to note that he wasn't asked to stay on for a second term. that i think is part of the record and part of the temperament issue we are talking about. carmona: first let me issue -- address the issue. congressman flake speaks of his record so when we looked at look at his record it appears that in the 12-year period, we paid and the citizens paid him $2 million. he participated in somewhere between 121300 meetings and

subcommittee meetings of which he was absent from two-thirds of them, absent from two-thirds of them as he traveled the country and the world. some of them paid for by special interest groups to go to resorts when he should've been at committee meetings that he didn't go to. now as it relates to my tenure as surgeon general i served honorably and i served with distinction because i stood up for what was right for the american public. the surgeon general's typically doesn't stay longer than one term. it's a very tough job but the important thing to note is when i had to, because of the partisanship, because of people trying to force me to change my reports or my opinions based on science, yes, i did create a little bit of discomfort to those republicans i worked for and at times some of the democrats but my job is not to be the surgeon general of the republican party or the democratic party. i had a more important job.

it was to be the doctor of the nation-state of the politics and on each and every issue i did that. that is why sometimes you create some controversy. it sidewalks the authority but you can't let that brand go to the politicians like congressman flake and the people he works within with in order to push ideological issues which have no basis in science. i refuse to do that so i'm proud of the fact that i served my country well and stayed focused on speaking shrift to science and truth to power. >> before we move on i wanted to have congressman flake respond in your attendance record. flake: whenever you are asked to travel overseas, when you travel on behalf of other committees you never do it when congress is in session so the notion that i've missed votes because those because i had been overseas on behalf of one of my committees is simply not true. carmona: i said subcommittee

meetings and meetings. the record is on line congressman. flake: you are wrong. in the congress is in session and you have committee meetings and committee hearings you are not traveling. you just don't do that. what you have is, if served on three committees most of my time. you will have three committee hearings going on at the same time almost every week and you have to decide which one of these subcommittees or committees you are on can you attend. what he is talking about is typical of any member of congress. carmona: i don't think so. flake: it shows what you know about how congress operates. carmona: if that is how congress operates i would want to be part of it. what about your trip to palm beach funded by -- how was that benefiting the american public? you told me you were doing this and the government requested you. we looked at your record or go two-thirds the time you were not in subcommittee meetings, over

800. you can tell me -- flake: you don't travel overseas or domestically when congress is going on an session is and that if you are assigned to more than one committee almost invariably, almost every day you have committee hearings going on, multiple committee hearings and if you don't like that about washington than he should go to washington because that is how it is. you are assigned in the senate so one of us could be assigned to several committees. you have to pick and choose which ones are relevant and that is why you have a staff member in each committee hearing or market to tell you when you need to run into vote and when you need to testify and that is how it happens. carmona: you're telling me that two-thirds were irrelevant. the numbers were irrelevant? flake: you are trying to put words in my mouth. you are trying to conjure up a washington that doesn't exist where you are on just one committee and you have one committee meeting or one market going on at the same time.

that's just not the way this. you have to go to the floor and move around. carmona: when he became a commerce and you said i want to serve no more than three years and then he said i lied on television to the people. how do we trust you with that? flake: i believe term limits was the right thing to do. there were a lot of people it did at that time. when i got there and solve the mess that was in washington and the things that needed to be reformed like the brand and earmarked in that was going on i realized you needed to stay longer than three terms. i have had stayed and i'm glad we did because we were finally able to get rid of earmarks in my fourth and fifth term and had i gone after my third term we would still have this pernicious practice of earmarking that i was told in in the last debate that you actually favor, going back to those rampant earmarking that landed some of my colleagues in jail. the abramoff scandal and

abridged and no mayor -- nowhere, we couldn't go on like that so i'm glad to take part in that and it took longer than three terms. i thought it wouldn't but it did and i'm glad i stayed. carbone a congressman flake lied and now he has an excuse and i understand that because that is the way operations work in washington. lots of excuses and they don't take responsibility for their actions. that is a problem we have with washington and the politics. it's so dysfunctional, no one is in charge, no one is taking responsibility and we the people suffer because people like congressman flake are not representing us when they are gone two-thirds of the time for meetings they should be in. >> let me jump in here and first of all remind everyone if you are just tuning and this is an arizona public your vote 2012 form featuring the two candidates running for u.s. senate here in arizona, democratic dr. richard carmona and republican congressman jeff flake. we have talked about a lot of

accusations here and we have talked about ads in partisanship. two ads popped up last week. i hear people are talking about them in the grocery store. it's not often i hear people in line at the grocery store talking about it at. the first one was run by your campaign by congressman flake, the former acting assistant secretary of health and human services accusing dr. carmona have having anger issues towards women and the second want is a theme that county swat commander former female, dr. carmona your commander at swat at one point saying that was not correct. in case somebody has missed these ads we are going to run both of these ads back-to-back so our viewers and listeners can hear them and then we will come back and let the two of you talk about those. >> there was an angry pounding on the door in the middle of the night. i'm a single mom. i feared for my kids and for myself. it was richard carmona and i was

his boss. carmona is not who he seems. he has issues with anger, with ethics and with women. i have testified under oath to congress. richard carmona should never, ever be in the u.s. senate. >> i am richard carmona and i approve this message. >> rich carmona was part of my swat team and he was a joy to work with. rich treats everyone with respect. it doesn't matter whether you are male or female, rich was about protecting people and saving lives so when i see a career politician like jeff flake attacking rich carmona who has spent his life helping others, it's despicable. congressman flake should be ashamed. >> dr. carmona we will start with you and we will go to congressman flake. some pretty heady accusations made against. carmona: i want to make sure

people understand that they are entirely false and there is no merit to any of those whatsoever. this woman, a disgruntled employee, who had numerous problems over the years and they have all been well-documented so i'm not going to repeat them here where she had trouble with anger and trouble with a lot of issues as well. most importantly with the public needs to know is that this really best exemplifies the type of politics the congressman flake is involved with, getting into the gutters with baseless accusations that have previously been vetted by the government reform committee as well as when i went through senate confirmation some of these other allegations were looked at and i received unanimous senate confirmation with the full support of senators mccain and kyl so this is very disingenuous. these allegations are sometimes a decade old and have them cleared previously. congressman flake in his desperation because his campaign is failing in my numbers were coming up felt he had to do

something to discredit me. there is no merit to any of these and again i would urge the public to take a look at the record and the press and elsewhere over a decade and you will find out who this lady really is and not somebody can trust because she has been discredited repeatedly. >> congressman flake. flake: you know i have been in congress is mentioned for 12 years and i have a record they can look at. dr. carmona has not served in an elected position so when you are looking at somebody to look at how they would operate in the senate where you have to have the right temperament to do so, this is certainly relevant and i take issue with your statement that this was somehow cleared up by the government affairs committee. it was not. if somebody lies to congress, testifying before congress like roger clemens did on the steroid issue, congress will go after them. they didn't do that. they didn't. he gave the testimony and you saw it there.

so this notion that somehow you can discredit her and it all goes away, you can't. like you said there are other allegations before. this isn't an isolated incident. there've been issues before and just saying while the senate oks me anyway isn't any defense of that. carmona: let's look at the facts. flake: i say that who is telling the truth that night was between you and the doctor but to say this is gutter politics i can tell you before this ad ran, long before, there was an ad run by rich carmona about made with veterans with missing limbs and then saying that jeff flake wouldn't take care of them. carmona: that is not what they had said. you are mischaracterizing congressman. that is not what they had said. the ad said that you fail the youth fail to vote on specific issues that would support

veterans and job training. flake: cherry-picking votes and acting as if i wouldn't take care of them, that is personal to me. my father is at that and my brothers in the military and the notion that i would stand by where there are veterans with missing limbs, so the notion that only the flake campaign is running tough act like this just isn't the case. carbone i let me clear find issue. christina was not under oath. this was the government reform committee that she chose to make this curious allegations. they investigated them and quite frankly there is no merit to the allegations. they went back to hhs and looked at the background and so was never reported to the police. a whole host of lies that support the spurious allegations and it was the government reform committee that did look at it and dismissed it as being spurious. as it relates to this veterans at all i did there was to show that when those young iraqi and

afghanistan u.s. veterans needed a congressman to be able to vote for them for the g.i. benefits and for the job training and combat assistance, he voted no. it wasn't just me. the iraqi afghanistan he veterans organizations gave him an f and lots of people spoke up. his vote was not in supporting that is what my head said. there was nothing implied. specifically said he did not vote to support these kids and i have a disabled veteran. i know what it's like to be in combat. we can stipulate that our parents her parents were in the war, but the fact is i have been downrange with those kids and i know what it's like. wield them everything. last year at this time i was down there is vice president of the department of defense looking at the care that those kids receive. looking at icu's filled with kids with two or three amputations and brain injuries and loss of and dark combat casualty care is so bad they

will live -- so good they will live 50 or 60 more years. that includes the g.i. bill that allows them to get an education and i couldn't be here today if i didn't have the g.i. bill and an open-air moment program for combat veterans. i was a high school dropout and that is what i'm fighting for and i will fight as a senator to make sure our kids always get what they need. there will never be a no vote is congressman flake is done. flake: senator mccain who i talked to today, he wanted me to tell you directly that those as you are running on the veteran issues are simply not true and they are deplorable. senator john mccain, think we can all stipulate, is for our veterans. some of the votes you actually cited for votes that i took on the house version of the senate bill that john mccain voted the same way at that i did as well. it sounds like you don't know exactly how the senate works or the house. again here, and i have to get

back to the issue. the notion that it was dismissed as frivolous or not without merit you are talking about something different. we are talking about the incident of you going to her house and banging on her door after midnight. they did not make any determination like that at all. they didn't say it was spurious at all. look at the record. if you look at the record you won't find out and if you want to talk to tom davis who is a republican ranking minority member on that committee at the time he will tell you that. >> we have to move onto another issue before audience members just joining us this is a form with two candidates running for u.s. senate arizona democrat richard carmona and congressman jeff flake. the border is obvious he had a large issue in arizona in two weeks ago one of the border agents working on border patrol was shot and killed. we now know that was a friendly fire incident that the time people came out and the plane started being assigned and some

of the blame went to illegal immigrants. obviously as they said now we know was friendly fire. is this issue turning into a scapegoat issue or are we actually going to see some answers to these problems and we will start with you congressman flake. flake: i hope we see some answers. the beauty now is we have a portion of -- that we can look to and say that portion is secure. the yuma sector and it's not just uhf telling us we have put -- control the local law enforcement like the sheriff democrat who supports me in this race. this is not a partisan issue. we have got to secure this border and if we can do it in the tucson sector what we have done in the yuma sector than we can move onto the other reforms that are really needed but we have got to have a secure border and the incident that happened,

very unfortunate incident just two weeks ago, just speaks to the need that we have got to finish this job and have a secure border. >> what the that mean? flake: senator mccain and senator kyl bennett introduced a template plan to take what we did in yuma and it involves obviously more border agents and better technology but it also involves the secure and swift punishment for those who come across illegally. that was put in place and rolled out across that border through the efforts of people like senator kyl and senator mccain and judge ruled who was unfortunately killed. that has worked in the u.s. sector. we can take those operation streamline in particular and do that in the tucson sector then we can move ahead with the other items that need reform. >> congressman carmona? carmona: first and foremost my comments will be based on 25 years as a deputy sheriff

working in a border county in a border state dealing with issues on a regular basis with i.c.e. and border patrol and national guard troops so understanding the complexity of this issue. congressman flake visits the border every once in a while and he thinks he understands how complex this issue is. it's extraordinarily complex. this issue of operational control is one that is being -- because both sides are not sure what the appropriate metric is to measure success along the border. we are desperately looking for best practices to secure the border but let's make no mistake to border security issue is a dynamic one that changes every day based on the threats. whether the threats are people coming across a just want to work or whether it's drug dealers are the potential for terrorists coming a terrorist coming across. we have a layered system. its electronic surveillance. is human intelligence and signal intelligence and boots on the ground and in centers and all of that layering helps to deter people from coming in. this is an evolutionary concept

or go every politician says we have got to secure the border. go work that border for a number of of years and you will see every single day security changes. every single day based on the threats and intelligence you get it changes. for people to come across whether it is undocumented, whether it is drugs or whether it is a potential terrorist, we are going to have to be very vigilant and do everything we can to stay one step ahead of her adversaries. we see what happens along the border when we build a big fence. we have more tunnels. if you look at the west coast we will be submarines coming with drugs and people and we have altar lights littering our border because they fly below the radar. the fact is we understand that security is of the utmost importance that the people need to understand this is a dynamic process that myself and law enforcement colleagues understand we have to be vigilant every single day and worked very hard to secure the border based on the threat at that particular time.

flake: i have heard politicians, libertarians all say basically that same thing. why isn't being done in shinkman? flake: i think some elements aren't like i said in yuma we have a good situation. we need to move that to the tucson sector but you mentioned the metric that needs to be changed. certainly if we can get a new metric let's get it. that is what is frustrating because those of us in congress can't hold the administration responsible when they don't provide the resources or take the actions that are needed to help secure that order. the metric basically in layman's terms in yuma we have a situation where if an illegal alien crosses the border we have a reasonable expectation of catching them. that is just a short way of saying that is what a secure border looks like. we don't have anything

approximating that and i take exception to the notion that i don't know anything about the border. i have lived in arizona my entire life. i have seen issues from northern arizona and grew up on a farm and and a ranch and have dealt with this issue. i have seen it all the way through and this notion that i'm going down to the border a couple of times and don't know anything about it is just wrong. so there is a lot that needs to be done that we have got to make the tucson sector look like the yuma sector. carmona: he attempts to politicize this and he blames another administration right away. there is a legitimate concern by knowledgeable people both democrats and republicans as to what the production metric is to determine success in port security. that is not a d on honor issue. this is trying to protect america so we have politicized it and it hurts the public and

becomes a divisive political instrument. this is about figure out the best measurement so to dismiss it and implied he is the only one that has the answers in his this party is very disingenuous. congressman flake may have lived in arizona his whole life and the fact is he has spent little time in the border. he may have been on a ranch 100 miles or more north but there is no substitute for walking that border day and night and working in seeing how difficult the problems are and that border. most of his information comes from briefing papers and discussions with people who happen to be in the border. is a lot different when you're out there at night and putting your life in jeopardy to protect this nation and you start to see how difficult it is even with the best technology and even with the best troops on the ground it's extraordinarily difficult. that is the point i was making. flake: if you have spent so much time in the border as you say you have your remarkably thin on

actual solutions here. ivan heard anything but bipartisanship, everybody come together and i can tell you i fight my own party when i need to. on the spending issues i was removed in my own party from one of my committees as punishment so the notion that i am spouting partisan where it -- rhetoric doesn't fit with my record at all. when you're in congress you have to make decisions and choices and that is what i hear very little of in terms of a plan. dr. carmona has a great resume and i don't think anybody disputes that but a resume is not a plan and a plan to deal with our nation's debt and deficit is the biggest issue facing us in these other things you have to take a position and stick with that position. that is what i don't see much of in his campaign. speak you said we needed to make tucson operationally like yuma. why hasn't it been done? what is the plan if jeff flake is u.s. senator what is the plan to make tucson like yuma? flake: we have not passed the

10-point plan introduced by myself and senator kyl and senator mccain and that involves specific measures in terms of increased in fencing or other barriers were needed, more resources in terms of ultralight or tripwires and then also operation stone garden to make sure that we reimburse those who run the border, local law enforcement. right now we are fully reimbursed for the effort that they make and that strains local communities and counties particularly on the border of cochise county. like i said where you have swift punishment or does it come across. the problem is we are not giving -- getting the right information. whether it's in a republican administration or democratic administration we are not getting the right information as to how many apprehensions are there and what is the recidivism rate and how many are coming through for the second time, how long were they kept in custody? did we ship them back to the

interior rather than taking them across the border? we have had a difficult time getting that information of dhs perk i would feel the same way if it were a republican administration right now. it happens to be a democratic administration that we are getting the information we need and we need to pass legislation to force the administration to move ahead. carmona: i did notice with congressman flake's solutions they are only republican solutions. the solutions are two republican senators and a republican congressman with the 10 points if they put forward. to show you how i think there's there is a lack of understanding i mentioned the ultralight's. you will notice congressman flake yielded to the fact that we need more ultralights. we don't use ultralight. those are the drug dealers coming across in ultralights. what i'm saying is the problem is not our site. the problem is smugglers coming in with small planes in ultralights below our radar and

dumping them in the desert. that was appointed was making. this is a very complex issue and to the issue of a plan, to say yuma works from over here. yuma is very different than the tucson sector. the borders made look-alike but the threats and challenges are sometimes remarkably different depending on the corridors and a drug deal issues that come across across and how they come across so we must look for best practices but for the congressman to imply that simply taking yuma tactics and moving them to tucson, we have no reason to believe that is going to work even if he does have a template plan. there is a discussion going on now to determine what are the best practices and what the metrics are and that's not a partisan issue as he is implying. >> we's congressman flake for some specifics. obviously there is not a single silver bullet to this problem or somebody would have come up with it now but if there is one thing specifically you want to be done that you think would make a

major difference on the border? flake: we need comprehensive immigration reform and congressman flake has failed to stand behind it because we are not sure where he is. when he first came down with bush and kennedy he was right behind and when senator mccain -- but then when he decided to be a senator was modified and now we have this modified d.r.e.a.m. act and this is a typical politician position. i've been clear from the beginning, supported and senator kennedy and president bush to make him out of out of the conference's immigration plan and the d.r.e.a.m. act so we settled in and stop politicians for making this device of currency that continues to perpetuate a problem rather than solve the problem. this is an economic issue as well. will i meet with farmers and ranchers and they say carmona when you are senator yaf isela. we want people to come across an work on a ranch as an agricultural fields so it's bigger than just immigration. comprehensive immigration plan

with the d.r.e.a.m. act and dreamers earning their right to be citizens the citizens with appropriate thesis where people can come across, worked workday visas, green cards, blue cards it doesn't take a difference it will help our economy and help small businesses along the border who are desperate for work. that would be the biggest single thing we could do to help alleviate some of the problems on the border. >> congressman -- flake: earlier i mentioned the ultralights when i was talking about unmanned aircraft on our side but i'm glad you brought up the ultralights because i was legislation authored to deal with ultralights by gabby giffords. a good piece of legislation that i was happy to help pass just before she came back for the first time. that was a democrat introducing a good bill that received great support on the republican side. we do work together when they can and should but i just want to clarify that. if we have solutions offered by democrats, that's great.

with regard to conference of immigration reform i worked on it for 13 years. pardon was senator kennedy and luis gutierrez and senator mccain and senator kyl, jim kolbe and many others. we beat our heads against the wall on that trying to get that through and came to realize in the end that until we have a more secure border nobody will trust the federal government to move ahead on the other items of immigration reform so it's not a matter of changing your position. it's a matter of getting done what you need to do before you can get legislation passed. i have said all along as soon as we get a more secure border and the tucson sector to look more like the yuma sector than we need to move on to the other reforms that are so desperately needed. when a temporary workers and we need to allow for them. we are not going to deport everyone who is here. i've never said that we should or could it. we have got to do with this on a rational basis that the notion that because you push for comprehensive reform and then realize you have to have a more

secure border before politically you can move ahead, that is something you accused me and others of never doing. sometimes in washington you have to take half a loaf and you have to work however you can to get that legislation through. you can't just take an ideological position and run with it. >> congressman you're known for your ideological positions in so many different areas and particularly on this one. when it came convenient for you to shift from comprehensive immigration and quinton only after your primary i think you switched for five times are ready in less years and if you have been in congress for 12 years and by your own admission you have dealing with this for 10 years why don't we have a solution? you have failed the public. there is no solution. flake: that is like me saying to you you're a doctor and you're into some but there are still sick people in tucson and you have failed in your duty. that would be absurd and the

notion that i can at a whim pass the legislation that i would like to, that is what they have in cuba or elsewhere but not in the united states congress. that is why you have to have the temperament to work with the other side, to work on legislation and amendments and to do these things that i've been able to do in the house and have a record of that i would like to take to the senate. you mentioned i find a lot of -- fight a lot of ideological battles. if you want to talk about your mocks being ideological i will gladly call it that to start with but i worked with republicans than with democrats and their some democrats who voted for every one of my earmark amendments earmarked amendments and hundreds of them and i'm glad they did and we likely likely wouldn't have the ban we currently have on earmarks had we not had democratic support. i'm grateful for that and that has been my temperament. >> we are getting close on time here. target believe in ours almost over and no doubt we could probably go for six hours that we need to get to one more

topic. this is a senate or him arizona 2012 your folks form with congressman jeff flake the republican and dr. richard carmona, the democrat. >> concerning the vice president's debate we heard two positions on dealing with the possibility that iran is developing nuclear weapons capabilities. what is the best way to deal with this possibility, military, diplomacy and we will start with you on this one dr. carmona. carmona: i would be happy to do that and i would like to start out by finishing with an answer from before. this is a pursuit that congressman flake spoke about, so-called earmarks. they are really less than 1% of our budget and the fact is his colleagues still circumvented. they are still going on so presented in a way that is a lot more than it really appears on a

daily basis with his colleagues. as it relates to the security issues in iran, it's a combination of being ready to respond when necessary and ensuring that iran does not get the ability to get the substrate to enrich its uranium. they have to enrich the uranium and they have to be able to weaponize it and most of the experts believe anywhere from six months to have it your way. intelligence has evaluated every day in our government is embargoing as much as a can with its allies but fresh and china have failed to cooperate and they are still bring him in this applies airspace. this is a rest to the whole world of your extremists with nuclear capability so at this point diplomacy is the way to go. i don't think our nation is ready for a third war. we are still recovering from the last two but we have to be ready to respond especially with our ally israel who is depending on us because they are ready for backdoor there. >> how do you know when it's time to respond? carmona: by watching the

substrate that comes in and monitoring signal intelligence and being able to determine at what point did they get near enough the threshold that we would have to do something preemptively? that is what we have to do. we don't want to start a war or go in there prematurely because what you might do is excite a third world third world war and pretty much embrace a lot of other world nations and world players who are state-sponsored and not state-sponsored and create a hornets nest that we don't want to do with so you want to be strong on diplomacy and work as hard as you can for the embargo. we know it's hurting them but it's slowing them down. we need to respond when and if the threshold is met and you probably saw the discussions of where the real line is with president netanyahu and president obama and that's the discussion that is going on. at what point you reach that threshold and they most of it depends on the robustness of your intelligence. flake if you want to minimize the effort that it tucked to get

an earmark ban then go ahead and do so but i can tell you to those of us who want our tax money spent wisely, it's a lot more than 1% of the budget says the leverages higher spending every well send it's a tough thing to do to go to the floor, hundreds of times and challenge earmark spending. and being ridiculed by your own party and the other party but we did it and gratefully so. sometimes when you're back where you have to take a stand and you have to do something tough. i look at your record and i think the people in tucson ought to know that in 2010 you didn't even bother to vote in the primary or the general election. sometimes you have to take a stand and that starts with actually voting. in washington, when you are faced with something like earmarks and i'm glad i took the stand that i did. call it an ideological stand or whatever you want do we are better off for it. with regard to iran i have very

little to add up and we have to continue to pursue particularly the capitol market section we are doing on on the central bank because that is where we have the opportunity i think to actually make an impact because russia and china find it more difficult to help iran's circumvent the sanctions but all options are to ought to be on the table. >> you want to add sanctions otherwise to to you agree on this issue? carmona: this could be news in itself. we certainly disagree on a lot and i understand the zealous pursuit of these things that congressman has spoken about but the fact is that the business community especially in the central phoenix area who are desperate for infrastructure don't see it helping them. they want a senator who's going to work for them to bring infrastructure improvements, to edit invite and attract innovators and make sure we have sustainable water and sustainable growth and we can make small business growth. right now after talking to those businesspeople they certainly

disagree with the approach that congressman flake has taken for the past 12 years because what is actually happening is they are not able to grow their businesses because he is taken such an ideological approach to this issue. a senator should be able to transparently bring home our tax dollars for infrastructure that allows her communities to grow so everybody looks at arizona and says i want to live here. user great schools and there is water. i want innovators to come here. it's not happening now because of the ideological approach. flake: the truth is arizona will finally get more transportation funding for infrastructure because earmarks are gone. for years and years members of donor state delegations, we are a donor state in arizona meaning we get more money to washington than we get back. how does that happen? too many donor state delegations would be bought off with a couple of earmarks. they will say you won't get as much in the formulas you would otherwise have been happy with these earmarks for a museum

here. that helped for a couple of decades and arizona lost out on hundreds of millions of dollars that we should have received but because of earmarks we didn't. now because earmarks are gone arizona in the next highway authorization bill will likely be up to 95 cents on the dollar. that is hundreds of millions of dollars more for arizona and it won't be one politician directing that i'm picking winners and losers. that his publicist and we want to go back to. >> we have only about one minute left. let me ask you a simple question. i'm sure it's something neither of you thought about. comment middle of november only one if you can win so one of you will be sitting at home. is this the last we will see a few or will the two of you be acted out there, which ever does not go to washington and we have about 35 seconds. carmona: i believe i will prevail and i will still be active in the community as i they have for over three decades. flake: the same thing.

we both expect to win but i think either us would be active. >> congressman flake thank you for coming in and dr. carmona thank you for coming in. we appreciate this hour of your time. we have reached the end of our time. thanks for joining us and if you would like to watch this forum again form again in its entirety go to our web site and click on the your vote 2012 section. you will find information and forms on southern arizona's three congressional races and additionally there is information on legislative and local races at a cpm.org slasher vote 2012. tomorrow night we'll bring you live coverage of the second presidential debate. i'm christopher conover. for an overt -- for andrea kelly and the entire team, thanks for joining us.

republican congresswoman mary bono mack and her democratic challenger rove released a stuff in their televised debate on friday. they are running california's 36th congressional district. this debate comes from the newspaper at km art itv in palm springs california. >> i am gene and welcome to the special decision 2012 right-wing blue coverage of the 36th congressional district debate between congresswoman mary bono mack and dr. leaves. in just a few moments ago our candidates arrived in the studio

and there was a brief greeting onstage. there was a shaking of the hansen a quick hello. all before getting down to business over the next hour. keep in mind this is the first and only televised debate between the two candidates during this election. i will be acting as your moderator tonight. on the panel are erica, political form from desert sun. she has been covering politics for nearly a decade and my coanchor has been reporting in the coachella valley for eight years now. they will be asking some questions will i try to keep the candidates under control the debate on top. the rules are simple. the candidates have agreed to answer questions and debate on domestic and foreign policy as well as a -- the first will will have two minutes to reply and the other candidate one minute to respond and then it's back to the first candidate for a 32nd rebuttal. the candidates are not allowed to address each other with

questions directly and there is no audience inside the studio. we are on a close at. that. the candidates are allowed to take notes and come to their podiums without props are prepared notes of any kind. each candidate will have three minutes to make an opening statement and later in our we will wrap things up by providing the candidates with another three minute speech for their closing statements. the candidates with a brand-new 36th congressional district are incumbent republican mary bono mack. she is currently serving her eighth term in the u.s. house of representatives. she took over 1998 for her late husband. the congressman is the chair of the subcommittee on commerce, manufacturing and trade as well as a member of the energy and commerce committee which has oversight on issues such as energy, health care, commerce, trade, telecommunications and the environment. the democratic challenger is dr. role ruiz who is an er physician and this is his first campaign for public office. ..

my parents couldn't afford to send me to college, so i put on my only suit, the one i wore to church. it was itchy and two sizes too big eared away from business to business in the desert heat, asking them to invest in their communities by investing in education. i promise to come back as a

doctor and put their health come i went to ucla and then to harvard medical school where became the first latino to receive three graduate degrees from harvard. true to my promise, i came home as an er doctor at eisenhower medical center. i am living proof that the american dream. but for too many people, the american dream is endangered because washington is broken. too many workers have lost their jobs. too many retirees have lost their saving and too many students can't afford college. and congress and our congress on have lost touch with the people. instead of looking out for us, they are focused on partisan bickering, scoring political points of looking out for themselves and wealthy donors. congresswoman bono mack's response is more at the same. more bickering, more partisanship. and were looking out for yourself instead of us. instead of listening to people in proposing world solution, the

congresswoman replies on the same partisan playbook that does nothing to create jobs or fixed income. watch tonight how many times you pass around empty phrases like liberal and big governments and nancy pelosi. every time you hear them, remind yourself, this is a language of gridlock. congresswoman, you are not running against nancy pelosi and tonight, you're not in washington. you are here in the coachella valley where people know that name-calling and playing politics to solve problems. mary bono mack wasn't always this way, but washington has changed her. it's changed her so much that she voted to turn a voucher program that would cost $6000 a year out of pocket costs, while voting nine times to raise their own pay. there's a lot more examples. republicans, democrats,

independents, we are not each other's enemies. our enemies are the high unemployment rate, the high foreclosure rate, the skyrocketing cost of prescription drugs and the high school dropout rate. i am running for congress because i want to help revive the american dream for middle-class families and seniors and i look forward to talking about those issues tonight. >> all right, congresswoman, the floor is yours. your three minutes. bono mack: thank you, gmail. tonight i went to talk you about the economy, national security, health care and energy from the real issues are real people and i hope her the rest of this evening i can. but first i must tell you what i've recently learned about her opponent, information has clearly tried to hide as a local process never investigated. everything i tell you now is documented fact in this awful. when dr. ruiz was based at harvard, he led protests against

the celebration of thanksgiving. he led protests against thanksgiving day because he opposes for thanksgiving stands for and what it represents. he even called for smashing plymouth rock on a symbol of america's freedom. he said, and i quote, crush this rock and all that it represents. well, what it represents, dr. ruiz comest the hopes and dreams to people fleeing from tyranny and seeking freedom. dr. ruiz should also know that abraham lincoln established thanksgiving to your country during the civil war. the truly disturbing part about doc dürer ruiz's contract with doing and what he demonstrating for her. during one of these protests, dr. ruiz wrote a letter for leonard peltier or come a man convicted of viciously slaughtering two fbi agents in south dakota. when leonard marjorie tom, the agents were wounded as they were defensive and lying on the

ground. one agent even lift his hand to shield himself from the barrel of a gun. leonard stood over him, pulled the trigger and said the bullet through his hand into his skull. this despicable crime is the work of the men dr. ruiz now once released from prison. but there's more. during another protests come a different killer had a statement calling thanksgiving day in american holocaust. dr. ruiz on organizational culture side, the greatest single acts of terrorism today were not perpetrated by osama bin laden, but the u.s. military when it dropped hiroshima and nagasaki. another speaker praised their brothers in afghanistan, palestine and iraq. you get the idea. these protests come you know what they were. dr. ruiz participated six years in a row, once even been arrested in charging the police falsely with brutality.

dr. ruiz hit his past because he knew it would destroy his political future. the local process or explain why they refuse to investigate and report his background. i urge you to go online, look at these facts for yourself, google it and you'll be as appalled and outraged as i am. >> moderator: we are under way. time to get onto the questions and answers. erica felci coming of the first question today. >> thank you. dr. ruiz, you got to voters that will vote to never cut medicare or social security. not once, not twice, never appeared at many experts and even officials under the about administrations have argued the existing programs are fiscally unsustainable. do you think you're being disingenuous to voters when he promised not to support any cuts? and if you hold true to your pledge, hollister thing to to see the programs? ruiz: i appreciate that

question, but ms. bono mack made some very, very strong accusations during her opening statement. i want to say my mother makes a wonderful thanksgiving turkey and i would love to invite you to our thanksgiving celebration this year. you see, what is shameful congresswoman bono mack is your calling me anti-american for celebrating our native american heritage, forgiving voice in the first americans so that their voice can be a part of our american story. here's the fact. the fact was that an elder by the name is sam was going to be beaten, so i shielded him with my body and i got beaten and pepper sprayed myself. and i got arrested. the city dropped all the charges and they paid $100,000 in scholarship funds for native american students and direct it to plaques for commemorating native american heritage.

congresswoman, your father and my two uncles fought in wars so that we can have those freedoms to give voice. you mentioned leonard culture. i am not a supporter of leonard pelcher. i do not support anyone who is murdered an fbi agent. she mentions 9/11 attacks in hiroshima bombs. i did not make those comments. but people are tired of guilt by association politics. in fact, are we to assume recently took an award from an organization that minimizes domestic violence and believes in legitimate, or the actual president has said the woman's battered movement has outlived its time? >> moderator: your time is. you didn't answer the question. cumbersome and commercially to speak on the subject on the table or should remove him from the questions?

bono mack: committee about? about to respond to that attack about the of medicare. >> moderator: could you please answer the question. ruiz: repeat the question, please. >> you got to voters who never vote to cut medicare or social security. not once, not twice, never. get many experts and even officials under the up on the administration have argued the existing programs are fiscally unsustainable. do you think you're being disingenuous to voters when he promised not to have cuts. hello to say the two programs? ruiz: over 50% of my patients in emergency department is medicare and i know very, very well how important medicare is to them. now, medicare is america's promise to our seniors. and if you work hard and pay your taxes, when you become a senior, you will be guaranteed medical coverage. how congresswoman bono mack has

broken that promise not once, but twice. you see, she wants to turn medicare into a private voucher coupon care like system that would cost seniors $6000 out of pocket a year. that is way too much for seniors today. so i'm dead of tackling a health care costs our deficit, she wants to put the burden of those costs on the shoulders of our seniors. now, i'm sure she's going to talk about obamacare and make the claim that it has 716 billion. >> list of the congress of the chance to rebut. bono mack: since there's two questions come onto separate one response this? >> moderator: yes, if you want. bono mack: you were there, you know she did. a certain multiple stories including the "boston herald" about your antics. it sought to ban websites that the foundation used to cochair. so on your own website that you

cochair right now, the data still exists about your antics, which is adamant she did. you cannot deny the you were to plymouth rock and said crush this and all that it stands for. i do believe you all an explanation to the american people about what she said. also, erica felci, i don't quite understand reporting here for the life of me, but when you were interviewed at the time about this protest, which by the way to police say you are belligerent, you then said i was just protecting a shield from being pepper sprayed. the story say today is your protecting an elder sam. dr. ruiz, who are you really? because we don't know who you are. furthermore, 2002, when you were cochair in this event, we had troops in harms way in afghanistan. you know, you stood there. your organizational coaches said we stand with our brothers in iraq and afghanistan and he did not leave the american troops.

if you try to denounce outcome of good for you, but the record shows you have six-year history of these protests. secondly, medicare. you want to talk about throwing around little interesting factoids, is clearly taking his talking points from nancy pelosi. as a matter of fact, dr. ruiz ad, claiming exactly what he just sat on the stage is one of the biggest whoppers of the year. look, medicare you cannot deny it's going broke. you know, one to think that even in your position, you would recognize that she's now we do have a promise to our seniors. we have said, anybody in medicare now, anybody 55 and over would remain in that system of medicare. but you know something, this isn't just about seniors. it's about the totality of our nation. it's about our children's and grandchildren. what you find acceptable is that everything we do today is

followed 40 cents on the dollar, put on a credit card that future generations are going to have to pay for. at the most beautiful grandbaby in the world. and yes, i think about my grandparents, they grandparents, parents and i think about my children and grandchildren. >> moderator: thank you, congresswoman. i would venture many candidates up for my today as we asked the questions can be pressed into them and don't address questions to one another. we'll give you plenty of time to respond to her response in your closing statement if you like. we're going to move on to the next topic. ruiz: i have a rebuttal. >> moderator: that was your question. a liquor bottle. you're right coming up for battle. ruiz: thank you very much. there was a full investigation of the charges were dropped. the statements ever made i did make the statements, therefore if you believe i made those statements, other people make statements on your behalf, like leaving on the concept of legitimate rape, that is

horrible. and they will protect, erika is protect the real problem, health care costs, not a voucher system and make her seniors pay for. but that's allowing medicare to negotiate drug prices with pharmaceutical companies and also to decrease the amount of unnecessary procedures and redundant ties that we have now. >> moderator: next question now is go to elizabeth beaubien. >> quoted most of the small-business community. in october 2009 day and lebanon president blueprint to diversify its economy. what role does the federal government having created those jobs client i.d. future congressional colleagues to support that effort? bono mack: as a great question i am happy and applaud them for the great work they do. at that you bring up an example of somebody who benefited in

this congressional district from the work that i did from a bipartisan bill that i passed and signed into law and was then that president obama. very bipartisan bill. almost on my bills are bipartisan. if you go to coin motorsports in india right now, ask them about the bill that i passed that improve the consumer products safety commission and the rules and regulations that they have to live under. go there and ask or go to any of the growers out here that i say. ask them about it and they bring pillows able to pass and sign into law. i thought of the american farmer had the opportunity to say, you know, grown in the u.s.a., product of the u.s.a. company people would would buy their produce. that was it also saves american jobs. promoting tourism, not just in the coachella valley, but throughout the country. i had the convention visitors who have come testified to share his expertise.

tourism and agriculture import industries. i fight very hard for them. i will continue to do just that. >> dr. ruiz, one minute. ruiz: congress amend, there is a little old lady that sat, where's the beef? i just want to say where the jobs? everything needless to say failure to deliver on jobs right here at home. you have voted to give tax breaks to corporations who ship jobs overseas and for subsidies for big oil. and you have taxed our job creators. under the right plan come committee voted to increase taxes for the middle class. in order to create jobs right here in our district, we need to decrease taxes on our middle class and small businesses and we are poised with the new school of medicine, which i hope to bring to this area of medical research in biotechnology and diversify our economy.

and i work in helping them develop their pipeline programs for students in order to get jobs. the same student said she voted to cut pell grants and stafford loans. >> moderator: 30 seconds to rebut. bono mack: folks comment is sad to hear what dr. ruiz is saying. to me a favor. go to claim, motorsports and yet not send herself. just go up one day go by, ask them, hear what they have to say. why don't you speak to some of our growers were so many of the other person asked them, to country origin labeling help to save jobs? and just one quick thing. riverside medical center was on board from day one. >> moderator: thank you so much. we stay with elizabeth beaubien for the next question.

>> 11 million undocumented immigrants and in the states. a recent study by you see berkeley and 67% of californians feel the federal government should offer a path to citizenship if they meet certain requirements. do you agree? and if you do, what requirements need to be included in that pathway. if you disagree, but what you propose be done to address the undocumented immigrants who are already here? ruiz: now, i am not for amnesty. i am for and earned path to citizenship. but this is a clear example of how congress has broken and how congresswoman mary bono mack has been 14 years too late and she's still deliver. she'll talk how important immigration is to the district, which he really is because our economy depends on it with our tourism, our agriculture in our construction. this is what we need in a comprehensive immigration reform. we need to secure our borders if more asians than by technology.

we need to make sure that our economic industry that we thrive on, without culture, construction and tourism can have the labor pool that they need. and we also need to create and earned path to citizenship that respects the laws. one of the things i would vote for is the dream act because these are children that for no fault of their own find themselves here following our rules, going to their schools, risking their lives for our country and for us and our freedom. congresswoman bono mack has failed to lead in this example. in fact, she is voted against the dream act. >> moderator: congresswoman, one minute to reply. bono mack: my stance on immigration is the same as it was two years ago. i think it's important we enforce our borders, both northern and southern afula seaports and airports. i believe in a strong interim

force that mechanisms and i believe we also need a non-amnesty robust program for people to use to be employed in the united states of america. but let me just say something about the dream act. although dr. ruiz -- day two years to pass comprehensive immigration reform. they did nothing. they did have a single bipartisan meeting of the white house to discuss the topic. i too support the dream act. i do not support once again president obama doing what he likes to do with desires in an executive order on the i support the concept of the dream act. absolutely. >> moderator: all right. thank you. ruiz: congresswoman bono mack and you're not running against nancy pelosi and this is the language of gridlock that is evident to why we have a

do-nothing congress. we have to realize that congresswoman bono mack has failed to lead. she talks a big game, that has failed to deliver time and time again and her language, when she attacks and attack, and scary cottony things, is very real for what is wrong with congress. transfer the next question goes to erica felci. >> congresswomen come in your last to do you refuse to disclose your prop aid which bans same-sex marriage. he repeatedly said this is a state not a federal issue. now that it is the debt by the federal courts, has become a federal constitutional issue at its national implications on legality of same-sex marriages. after all these years, don't you think telly valley residents deserve to know we stand on the issue? bottomline commission same-sex marriages began at the state or federal level?

bono mack: thank you for the question. and i will get to it, but i do need to go back to one thing that dr. ruiz has said. it is critically important that people recognize a boat for dr. ruiz is a vote for nancy pelosi. the very first vote dr. ruiz retaken that congress to be his vote to confirm nancy pelosi as speaker of the house. very important people understand that. but back to the question of same-sex marriage. and i know you bring us up every time you can. look, my family -- it is clear where i yam with my family. it's always been clear. there's been no greater supporter of a loved one in a family than i have been. they very close, wonderful, loving relationship. it is clear that i have a big heart and i don't have a bigoted bone in my body. but you know something, i said this because "the desert sun" try to pigeonhole me and taken a state issue.

it was not a federal issue or me to decide. and i sat back and i say now, look at my history. i have twice voted against constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage. that speaks for itself. my family was a modern family before there even was a modern family. "don't ask, don't tell," i voted against the first one because it's a purely political vote. but you know what, i supported tomaso tell, the repeal. this past week when i was at the ng ournine palms visitiys trooe will.r i asked the question, has there been a problem with the repeal of tomaso tell? i'm so happy to hear them say universally, no, there have been no problems at the repeal of tomaso tell. >> moderator: thank you, congresswoman. ruiz: congresswoman bono mack pictures.

nancy pelosi. we need to see this is another example of failed leadership. she dodged the question. she must be really good at dodgeball because that was a real good dodge. the other thing is this, that there are a thousand people this district that this is a very important issue for. now i believe that marriage equality is a right. i believe in marriage equality. i'm against any form of discrimination, whether gender, race or the person that you love. anybody who loves each other, wants to be in a committed, loving relationship should have the right to marry. now congress amend, break here, yes or no? you have thousands of residents who want to know if you believe in their right to marry? bono mack: at dr. ruiz come you must have me confused a supreme court justice. i am not that. this decision will make its way through the courts and it will

wind up in the supreme court of the united states of america. if you want to ask a question of things that defense of marriage, i have a very clear record on these things. have a clear record on not a nondiscrimination in the work place. i have a very clear, staunch record with these issues. it is so sad that somebody like you always seeks to divide people rather than unite them. we move on now with erica felci in the next question. >> constraints and libya have made it for the united states to figure out exactly how the ambassador and other americans were killed. both you and your opponent denounced the attack, but she's kept quiet about their president obama has been taking the appropriate steps. what do you think of the white house's response? and what do you think is america's role in stabilizing the region to make it safe again? ruiz: now, i firmly believe that america is a beacon of democracy and are the leaders of the free

world. i firmly believe that our priorities should be the security of america and americans around the globe and our israel were all of our allies in the area. once this becomes an issue -- once this becomes an issue where we start to focus on the terrorist acts around the world, we start to realize that our troops in more than lip service by congresswoman bono mack. we need to make sure that we protect america and americans and we honor our troops. she has decreased millions of dollars of how the mental health for them. she has cut the ability for the families of soldiers who died to stay in their homes. she's voted against the veterans though -- veterans benefits bill and voted against the post-9/11

g.i. bill. she has voted not to increase combat pay for combat soldiers. all of this at the same time that she has voted nine times to increase their own pay. i just couldn't issue at that, congresswoman bono mack. bono mack: i sure wish i had a lot more time to talk about this. once again this is very sad. i do not know who dr. ruiz is, but all this information of what he stood for for six years will be online. please go and pick it up yourself. this is about libya. they say how important this is two matches what happened, but why it happened. first of all can ambassador stevens wrote to secretary of state, said i am concerned about our safety. i am concerned because i know it's you and libya. those were ignored. but the biggest problem is not

just what happened, but why it happened. people like dr. ruiz who are sympathizers for the greatness of america, they believe -- they believe that actually if we apologize for opponents come up for nice to them then so be nice to us and returned. because of this, our country is less safe, much more dangerous place today than four years ago. >> moderator: thank you, congresswoman. dr. ruiz. ruiz: this is clear evidence that congress is broken. now over and over, she will repeat this incident in the city of plymouth and it's a shame. it is a shame -- it is a shame -- it is a shame that you are trying to make me seem anti-american. bono mack: six years, six years, six years. ruiz: we were to protect her ability to give voice to a native american heritage, to

give them a voice in our american stories, congresswoman. >> moderator: thank you, dr. ruiz. >> two years ago you told "the desert sun" datacenter best interest of the united states remained in both iraq and afghanistan. the last month he told the veterans that president obama couldn't outline a clear and concise explanation of why troops remain in afghanistan and the u.s. should quote get out. what process has changed a perspective that the u.s. pulled out immediately, how do you address concerns that the enemy will fill the void? bono mack: let me go back to little more thorough reporting that. but i did say, america was fair, but i did say as long as president obama cannot articulate to the american people why we are there and what we are doing, but allowing our troops to flounder because he feels comfortable because it's given them a timeline for withdrawal.

that troubles me greatly. i stand at his presidential leadership committees yes, i'm concerned about troops being deployed in afghanistan absolutely. what else troubles me about the time in a president obama, which is arbitrary political timeline. he didn't get that from the general parity data from his political adviser. for me to you what troubles me the most. i think women are more concerned about security than anything else right now. nobody -- it's a last night after joe biden was busy defending iran, even paul ryan's answer on this is a little incomplete to me, too. nobody is said to the american people what i need to know what would paul at our in afghanistan, are we safer off as a nation when our troops were there. while al qaeda went again have the ability to take root in afghanistan can once again launch a terrorist attack against us? he needs to answer that question. he doesn't care. all president obama wants to do is have a political timeline because it makes them feel good.

>> moderator: congresswomen commit thank you. you may reply. ruiz: she once again speaks a big game, but it failed to really lead in this manner. one is devoted to get us into iraq. president obama got us out and also he killed osama bin laden. al qaeda right now is the weakest it's ever been. but we cannot let our guard down. we have to go after terrorists and make sure they never strike again. and we have to ensure that there are no growing cells anywhere in the world and make sure that we have our resources there. now, she talks about our veterans and our soldiers. we need to bring home troops from afghanistan. but more importantly, we need to respect her troops in combat in harms way. you voted to free their combat pay. you said no to an increase in pay for our soldiers who risk their lives for us.

yet you voted nine times. >> congresswoman -- as we all know, not all bills that come out of congress are good. my overall record is absolutely supporting troops and increase in pay. what startles me and frightens me about you, to his base, we are not safer today because osama bin laden is dead. you and your sympathizers would like to say, bolivia's proof we are not. president obama debate to tell the american people, everything is cool now. that's why they lied about the cover-up and deny the fact it was a terrorist attack here that is why they blamed america, that is why they blamed a film before they blame the terrorists. >> moderator: thank you so much. >> another question for you, dr. ruiz. in 1990 the first of the congress on the selected command newt gingrich pledged to save

the coming of supporters of the wants of restoration efforts have admitted lawmakers have not made progress. what matters you address the issue in the campaign trail. what would it take to move the issue beyond just rhetoric and empty promises? is very point with the federal government seizes control of the project? bono mack: thank you for bringing up her seat because it brings very pleasant memories of my father taking me to this song sea to fish and having picnics with the family. and now we are seeing dead fish and they stink that is unbearable. and this is somewhat for the congresswomen failed to deliver pitch he continues to talk a big game. she promised in her first election that she would fix this the period 14 years later, it has not been fixed. i do know it seems more crummy broken promise or the salton sea. in fact, this is a great opportunity right now for us to

revive that salton sea coming so we can have it as a hotspot for tourism so other children can fish with their fathers, so we can develop geothermal energy to boost our economy. and the way we go about doing it is public or the partnerships with local input and authority so that we can come together and stop this bickering and all this other stuff that congresswoman bono mack is so adept at an skilled, but really come up with some problem-solving solutions. and that is what's missing in congress and that is what is missing in congresswoman bono mack. >> moderator: thank you, dr. ruiz. bono mack: and they go to the concert at greenacre about the green. you do nothing at all to take responsibility. you haven't even had a plan until now that's been asked of you. clearly don't understand complexities of the sea. production ostrogoths are in the

the quantification settlement agreement. how do we unravel that agreement? had we take control for the state of california? this is what it's all about, dr. ruiz. i and others like senator feinstein and senator dniester cheney have also been working very hard on the salton sea. there's no question that time is of the essence. next are the water transfers go into effect. right now is opportunity to get the support of neighboring communities on the way to the city of lancers. as soon as possible. dr. ruiz, the senior bickering about that green is really getting old. at that to point to people who are -- >> moderator: time, congresswoman. dr. ruiz, your 30 seconds. ruiz, this is another failed promise to me. she's a 14 years and she's talking about the same thing, but nothing has happened. nothing has gotten done. one of the reasons is because

you are so out of touch, so i'd say. you're harder to find than waldo. unless people pay to see you it's very difficult. we have to make sure we are true leadership and bring people together in a forum so that we can start solving this problem. >> moderator: continuing along. erica felci at the next question. >> dr. ruiz campaign has been interested out of touch bureaucrat who shows the district by joking with radio host to describe esau squalor is the third world toilet. interns come you describe dr. ruiz has further thoughts on house minority leader nancy pelosi in a wasteland covered he was arrested but protesting thanksgiving in college. you think he's been unfair in your portrayal of your opponent and how do you respond to the tax on your character? bono mack: thank you, great question. as a segment opening opening statement that would go into

this debate simply debating issues, but clearly dr. ruiz character is definitely worth looking at. i am very, very frightened. he said it was an incident a few moments ago. he is six years where he met protesters, demanding people crush plymouth rock and all that stood for. by the way, i am wondering, even to the press ask a question. he said it was police brutality, their fall. they were the bad guys, they were the aggressors. but then he signed, and we have a signed statement from dr. ruiz every track did that there was no police brutality. i don't know who he is. this to me is critically important. then explain to people why this matters other than the fact that yes you said crush plymouth rock and all that it stands for. questions come up when you're a member of congress that are critically important. questions like this, do you support reading a terrorist is miranda rights? fast one.

another comedy support comedy support training terrorists in the city of new york? that's two. these are very important questions. the character of the dr. ruiz has exemplified during his years in the sixers at harvard medical school are very troubling. it absolutely is important for the people of this district to know who he is. ruiz: she was stuck about the issue in her opening statement with the complete accusations and she's sticking to the accusation, which is completely false. congresswoman, read the investigation. i got arrested for protecting a native american elder. now the other thing is all the charges were dropped. the city paid $100,000 for a native american scholarship fund. their rectitude plaques in commemoration of native american heritage. you have shown disdain with your language. you bring up something in the past to cover up your disdain of the present. ui for the poverty of people in

your district and called a third world toilet. you sure do seem to seniors from the middle class and native americans, i'm appalled. you want to charge our senior $6000 a year for a private voucher coupon care for their medicare. and now you're running away from that. you also tax the middle class under the ryan plan. that is disdain today. >> moderator: dr. ruiz. do you want a 32nd rebuttal? bono mack: of course they do. this is critically important. the state police brutality or was there not? was an elder or was it a child? these things are in the press. they're in the "boston herald," the harvard newspaper. they are documented, they are britain, spelled out for people to see. it is critically important that people know who he is saying he is not who he is. further, what i said in the e-mail message was that the city

councilman actually should've been held accountable for allowing durability we've served with condition that it was in that it continues to be. have your party release the entire interview. you haven't done that. release a transcript of the interview that exonerates me. >> moderator: thank you, congresswoman. >> dr. ruiz come in 2010 from a bipartisan federal commission that a plan to cut the nation's deficit by 4,000,000,000,003 mix of tax increases and spending cuts. the ball simpson plan was never voted on in congress. you agree with oral or what they came with whatever do you think will cut the country's debt, which knocks the 16 trillion? ruiz: the debt and deficit are an important issue each attack when they are not alert and national security. this is one of the circus contrast between congresswoman

bono mike and myself. you see, congresswoman sub one wants to put the deficit and burden of our debt on the shoulders of our seniors, middle-class is too dense by turning medicare into a private voucher system and charging our senior $6000 a year for their health care costs on average, by cutting pell grant and stafford loans to middle schools too dense to rely on those financial aid for their services and for college education. she's voted to increase taxes through the ryan plan. all of this in order to keep track state's are multimillionaires in tax breaks and subsidies for corporations to shift jobs overseas. were going to reduce deficits by bringing home troops are in afghanistan, by making sure we create jobs right here in the district, by making sure that we decrease taxes on the middle class and small businesses and allow medicare to negotiate drug prices so we can tackle the real

problem, which is their health care costs and eliminate unnecessary procedures and redundant tests. >> moderator: congresswoman coming of one minute. bono mack: i don't think she understood the question. he said is going to reduce the debt by not having so many medical tests which by the way is a major part of obamacare. obamacare is what cut medicare $716 billion. under just tell you a few specific things i would do immediately to cut the debt. first of all i would repeal obamacare as quickly as possible. secondly, i would define the high-speed rail, which nobody wants, nobody thinks they can afford. nobody wants to pay for it it. i was up for agencies like the nea and pbs and say the time for you to make it on your own. not only that, i would do everything we could again. get that debt down. lower those interest rates, lower the interest we are paying every single day. everybody pays that.

the middle class, every single person senior coming out on. i'm tired of hearing if there's one group of people against another. we can save medicare. we can say that for this generation. we can save it for 555 and over. the naught else, we can save up for our generation in children's generation, but not by ignoring the problem. >> moderator:, 30 seconds to respond. ruiz: congresswoman bono mack thinks the idea is to charge her seniors and she's made the statement about obamacare cutting 716 billion medicare benefits. that's simply not true. there were cost savings. in fact, congresswoman bono not voted for this exact same savings under the ryan plan. and the worst of president clinton, it takes some nerve to attack something he voted for yourself. now, what we need to do, and this is a clear example. she wants to balance the deficit on the shoulders of our seniors,

middle-class and our students while protecting tax breaks for multimillionaires and corporations that ship jobs overseas. >> moderator: thank you so much. last question of the night. >> congresswoman, critics describe what it is politicians who will vote in lockstep with their political party leadership can you name some policies the president of bob has implemented that she support? dr. ruiz, kidneys and policy points we disagree with president obama? >> thank you america. sure. but though i passed of the house and the senate committee to obama's dad and senator lott. consumer product safety is one. i support other bills that passed and he has supported. it's a lot easier to say what i don't support. we haven't talked about energy. because it's so critically important i am going to say

this. president obama wants to kill the keystone pipeline. on the world would increase energy supplies by killing the keystone axel pipeline? explained me that. yes i disagree wholeheartedly. but they tell you. president obama does not meet. he doesn't talk to republicans pay the past obamacare, they did it without any republican though. they made a point and i said to my colleagues i would love to work with you because a lot of the parts of health care improvement i believe in. you know is that to me that what are you kidding? of nancy pelosi knew i'd have to come she would kill me. that is sober up against. do i support a lot of obama's initiatives? no. let me tell you an important audit than a casting tomorrow will be for mitt romney. transfer congresswoman, thank you are a much. dr. ruiz commutes a minute and you could talk about them as he was supporter things would not

support. ruiz: this is a very important question and i really want the people who have been viewing this debate tonight to really see that she has clearly demonstrated why congress is broken. imagine working in a committee with this type of language of dreadlocks and attacks. now, i do not believe that we should eliminate the bush tax cut for those that make over $250,000 a year. we should eliminate those only making a million dollars or more. i also don't agree with president obama increasing the premiums for veterans in the tri-care insurance. you see, this is something that's very important. congresswoman bono mack has gone washington. she speaks her party line like no other and i'm not running for the democratic party. i am not running for nancy pelosi or president obama. i'm running for you right here in this district.

as a public servant, i will always run for you. she continues to ask, who am i? i was humbly given the person of the year by the desert magazine. i was given humanitarian of the year by the rancho mirage chamber of commerce. i've always been a public servant and stood up hard for the residents of this district and i will do so for our seniors, middle-class and students right here. transfer congresswoman, one minutes for rebuttal. bono mack: i don't know have to say to that rebuttal because i've no idea what he stands for. he's saying something today, but folks please go online to research for yourself. it is appalling of the research and data about who you were. again, let me remind people, 2002, dr. ruiz, you lead a protest vote at our troops in. 2002, cohorts that, we stand with the people of afghanistan

and palestine. is that worth smiling about? habitus were smiling about. that's very, very serious. people to know that. it's important to recognize your first thought unless you want to say otherwise unpleasant to first-time to you commence your very first would be for nancy pelosi for speaker. is that true or is it not true? >> moderator: would you like to respond? ruiz: she asked a question i would like to bring up the issue of once again, she knows how to attack, but she doesn't know how to create solutions. what i want tok abouit she made a ver important issue about nondiscrimination in the work place. she is proteed that. you voted for the little event that her act, which ensured equal pay for women as men. you voted against that. so i can't let you get away with l these false claims are making bono mac i know you' never

been in business. >>atreoing ta- whait's like. wrap up ts tocare cumbersome and, please. bono mack: and they are concerned about securi, national security, desc security. they want to know they can pay the bills. the lilly ledbetter pay actwas nothing but a political ploy . >> moderator: congress o about were out of te. we could go on for hours clearly in t bottom portion sure tre was quickly comingo the last rm ou candidates. that. so they come europe first. izthank you again or mr anheessun"or hosting the debate. enged a informevotere so essetial to an essential democracy. as candidates, we owe it to you to tell you who we are and where we differ. the freedom to disagree and speak our minds is the most

amicanradions and aue but is athere ig difference tw disagreeing a character ssassinatio congresswon, i dagree with your vie and piorities n't question your triotism. i think it is shamat you queson mine. th is at the heartf what is wrwith washingt. i do expect tsolve america's proble if you do ee bein tlie r of opponttoxpress the v without calling them un-american? the congesswoman an i do have very diffvierent he ard a t of hem night t eir core the fferencesare about wh we stand up for. the congresswoman stands up for billionaires and companies that ship jobs overseas at the expense of the middle class and retirees. we've all heard a lot about job creatorstonight. and congresswoman bono mack previo s a debatingse in

weapon and in hr speeches as anyone were actually against we areall forjob creators. thproblem is conesswom bono mack has lost touch with o e realob cators to give their schools they eed to g get a job our jb reators. the congresswoman bono mack noted to cut education by 115 billion. i think the middle-class family that can afford a house is a job creator and especially in our area, was such an important part of the economy. but the ryan budget that voted for would have increased taxes by $1400 a year. i think a company that hires american workers is a job creator. the congresswoman bono mack voted to give tax breaks to companies that shift jobs overseas and to add insult to injury, she spent over $80,000 of taxpayer money under a luxury

car and voted nine times to raise their own pay. washington has changed mary bono mack and she's lost touch with the people she supposed to represent. the seniors who count on medicare and social security, the families that work hard every day to build a better life for their children. the homeowners trying to make the next mortgage payment. those are the people who want to give voice to. i would be honored to have your vote. god bless you and god bless america. >> moderator: congresswomen coming of the last word tonight. bono mack: i would like to thank kmir and "the desert sun" for hosting chance to bid on the watch and at home tonight. i went to thank you for the support you've given me in a tremendous honor of being a congresswoman. we all know that today america faces tough challenges. it's dangerous and unstable, common misspelling, america's unemployment rate is too high and our quality of life is shrinking.

we can and we must do better. i believe in america. i believe in our people and i believe in our future. we face difficult times before they've always come through better and more united and we will again. there's so many stark differences between my opponent and me. the most fundamental difference is how we view the role of government. i believfreemats and people go ndn-hand. vernment should be a gian of ourres and liberties because individual freedoms must be good. my opponent not only believes in a bigger government, he has campaign donors to indice how far to the lefis going to go. nancy pelosi has poured hundds of thousands of doars into his campaign. he has rece financial support fromean penn, a n who's close to venezuelans dictator hug chaz,o friend of amrice. dr. said it received suppor fromh inmou bire family tt is dirty poured millions into left-wing radical causes throughout the world.

dr. release represents one of the most far left candidates to ever speak as candidates. his history of involvement with groups are shocking. but i want your support and your vote, not because of everything wrong with dr. ruiz,utecause you and i share a belief about what is right with america. we know by controlling governnt spending, dcing xes animinating e overreach of government, will unleash the spirit and power of ameri's small binesses in ashburn or worse. freedom, free markets will always prevail. i ask you tonight so together we will continue to build and fight for a better america. that is my commitment to you. thank you, god bless you and may god continue to bless the united states of america. >> moderator: thank you, congresswoman. we would like to thank congresswoman mary bono mack and dr. ruiz. we covered a lot of progress in

heated exchanges to be thank you for time in this important debate in this very important upcoming election. and again, it doesn't matter who you vote for, but though for sure on november 6. cast that ballot. >> would also like c. feedback on kmir.com and my desser.com. >> moderator: i want to thank my colleagues in helping us prepare the questions. my coanchor, elizabeth beaubien for putting this together. i want to thank everybody here at kmir and both of you for coming tonight. we do appreciate it. we want to thank you for watching. we'll have more debate coverage tonight at 10:00 and of course on the kmir six. again, thank you so much for watching. we'll see you back your tonight

at 11:00. >> julius sobel from the national journal will turn us to talk about the senate race in north dakota, a very tight senate race between republican rick berg and democrats hedy heitkamp. ms. sobel, this is a state where president obama is fairly certain to lose by double digits. why is the senate race expected to be so close? >> yeah, i mean, for sure obama is expected to lose by double digits in north dakota. but haiti heitkamp, people

basically agree it could have made at the race for democrats. republicans are expected to win the seat in the beginning and would have been a republican kickoff. but she's kind of crass to the independent persona. she really a centrist credentials on the trail and people just say she's a great campaigner. she's got some good ads in this race has basically a dead heat or months. >> these two candidates met at a debate last night. c-span will be airing that debate tonight on c-span 2 at 8:00 reviewers would like to watch that. but julie sobel of the national journal, talk about the strategy of nationalizing this race on berg's part. >> sure, what he basically has to do as president obama is unpopular in the state, so there's been a lot of tying her to the president. she has said she supports his health care bill, so berg and

republicans have certainly made that a big issue. she has said she supports parts of it and wants to fix the parts wrong with that commodities for repeal. certainly the debate that was an issue that he pushed. he's also trying to tie her to senate majority leader harry reid and the fact that camino, a vote for heitkamp is a vote for democrats who called the senate majority. so in a state that is a red state were ever on is going to end, where he's kind of tried to emphasize that, you know, look at the big picture. look at who controls the senate in voting for haiti heitkamp may be like her. maybe she seems that a good person, but let's focus on the really big picture of national issues. >> her job is to localize this race? batter strategy here? >> it is feared and also, she

certainly has distanced herself from the national party and president obama on certain issues. one being the keystone pipeline, which obama opposes. and she has repeatedly said that she supports, she's emphasize she was try to protect north dakota farmers from over regulation, which is something people worry about the democrats being in power and cap-and-trade is another area come where she said she differs to the democrats. so she's focused on where she differs from the national party than where she agrees with them as well. >> so she's want to go out and criticize the obama administration if she has to she has to in this race? been a guest on a i have spent. >> talk about moving a poll spirit has been stuck at a tossup for a long time? is this a more volatile race? could be influenced by tonight's debate quite >> you know, it could